Margaret D. Fabri, of Charleston, for Appellant-Respondent. Sandra J. Senn and Stephanie P. McDonald, both of Charleston, and D. Mark Stokes, of Moncks Corner, for Respondents-Appellants. James A. Stuckey, Jr., of Stuckey Law Offices, of Charleston, for Respondent.

This case involves an appeal of the denial of a request for a preliminary injunction preventing a “special audit” of the Berkeley County Clerk of Court’s Office. The individual defendants cross-appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss Mary P. Brown’s claims for defamation, defamation per se, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

James Emerson Smith, Jr., of Smith, Ellis & Stuckey, of Columbia, and Julianne Farnsworth, of Farnsworth Law Firm, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Mark Weston Hardee, of Columbia, for Respondents.

This is an appeal from a directed verdict in a case seeking to recover real estate commissions.

Paul J. Doolittle, of Motley Rice LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, and Christopher M. Holmes, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellants. R. Michael Etheridge, N. Keith Emge, Jr., both of Carlock, Copeland, Semler & Stair, of Charleston, C. Tyson Nettles, of Robertson & Hollingsworth, of Charleston, Cari Hicks, of Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, of Greenville, and Robert Lyles, of Lyles & Lyles, of Charleston, for Respondent Tie Down Engineering. John K. Blincow, Jr., Sean A. O'Connor, both of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, of Charleston, Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., Steven J. Pugh and Drew Hamilton Butler, all of Richardson, Plowden, Carpenter & Robinson, of Columbia, for Respondent Style Crest Products Inc. Michael A. Scardato, of McNair Law Firm, of Charleston, Robert L. Widener, of McNair Law Firm, of Columbia, and Albert A. Lacour, III, of Clawson & Staubes, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent Minute Man Products. Benjamin D. McCoy, Andrew E. Haselden and Rowland P. Alston, III, all of Howser, Newman & Besley, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent CMH Manufacturing Inc. S. Keith Hutto, C. Mitchell Brown and William H. Latham, all of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, of Columbia, for Respondents Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., Fleetwood Homes of Georgia, Inc. and Champion Enterprises. J. Boone Aiken, of Aiken, Bridges, Nunn, Elliott & Tyler, P.A., of Florence, for Respondents Horton Homes,d/b/a Dynasty Homes, Inc., d/b/a H&S Homes. Morgan S. Templeton, of Elmore and Wall, of Charleston, and W. Scott Simpson, of Batchelor & Simpson, of Birmingham, AL, for Respondent Southern Energy Homes.

This is a class action lawsuit in which the appellants contend the respondents manufactured and/or sold inadequate tie-downs for mobile homes. The respondents alleged, inter alia, negligence, breach of express warranty, breaches of implied warranty of workmanlike service and merchantability and fraudulent concealment. The trial court granted the respondents summary judgment because there have been no actual damages or injuries. The respondents contend their damages are the difference between what they bought (i.e. an inadequate tie-down system) and an adequate tie-down system. The issue on appeal is whether the circuit court erred in granting the respondents summary judgment on the breaches of warranty causes of action.

Robert Norris Hill, of Newberry, and Richard M. Lovelace, Jr., of Conway, for Appellants. Stephen E. Darling and Elizabeth F. Bailey, both of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, of Charleston, for Respondent.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in ruling that the proper measure of damages for destroyed noncommercial trees was the difference between the value of the entire premises before and after the fire.

Kevin M. Hughes, of North Myrtle Beach, for Appellant. Diane Rabon Bagnal, of Aynor, for Respondent.

This appeal involves the interpretation of Rule 40(b), SCRCP.

H. Wayne Floyd, of West Columbia, for Petitioner. John D. Elliott, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This Court granted certiorari to review whether the statute of limitations barred an action for paternity and child support on behalf of a disabled adult.

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General S. Creighton Waters, all of Columbia, and Solicitor David M. Pascoe, Jr., of Summerville, for Respondent.

This death penalty case involves the issues of: (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on a statutory mitigating circumstance; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the solicitor to ask a prison consultant witness about prison conditions; (3) whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant a mistrial when the solicitor asked that same witness about the possibility of escape; (4) whether the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction to try appellant for capital murder; and (5) whether the trial court erred by refusing to suppress a watch and liquid material found on appellant’s pants since the pants were seized during an allegedly illegal arrest.

James W. Logan, Jr., of Logan, Jolly & Smith, LLP, of Anderson, for Petitioner. Kenneth C. Porter, of Porter & Rosenfeld, of Greenville, for Respondent. Jack D. Griffeth, of Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, of Greenville, for Amicus Curiae The South Carolina Home Builders Association, Inc.

This case involves an order of the circuit court granting summary judgment to respondent (contractor), and holding petitioner (subcontractor) was barred from bringing a tort suit against contractor, having represented himself to contractor as having workers’ compensation insurance. The circuit court found the matter was required to be handled as a workers’ compensation claim under S.C. Code § 42-1-415. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the circuit court, finding that an initial determination was required to ascertain whether subcontractor was a statutory employee of contractor before a determination could be made as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Disciplinary Counsel Henry B. Richardson and Assistant Disciplinary Counsel C. Tex Davis, Jr., both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Joseph W. Morton, pro se, of Wilmington, NC.

In this attorney disciplinary matter, a full panel of the Commission on Lawyer Conduct recommended that Respondent receive a public reprimand for violating the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct with regard to a solicitation letter mailed to a South Carolina resident. Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in North Carolina, but not South Carolina. The Supreme Court will consider whether discipline is warranted and, if so, the appropriate sanction for any misconduct.

Roy A. Howell, III, and Kirsten L. Barr, both of Trask and Howell, of Mt. Pleasant, for Petitioner. Johnnie W. Baxley, III, of Willson, Jones, Carter & Baxley, of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondent.

This is a workers’ compensation case. The Court granted a writ of certiorari to review Avant v. Willowglen Academy, 356 S.C. 181, 588 S.E.2d 125 (Ct. App. 2003). The issue is whether Travelers Property Casualty Co. or United Heartland is the insurance carrier responsible for Willowglen’s workers’ compensation claim. The Court of Appeals held United Heartland responsible.

Thomas B. Bryant, III, of Bryant, Fanning & Shuler, of Orangeburg, for Petitioner. S. Jahue Moore and M. Ronald McMahan, both of Moore, Taylor & Thomas, of West Columbia, for Respondent.

In this case, the Court is asked to determine what quantum estate was conveyed by the deed between husband and wife and if the estate is subject to partition.

William S. Brown and Elizabeth M. McMillan, both of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, of Greenville, for Petitioner. Kenneth L. Holland, of Gaffney, for Respondent.

This Court granted cert to review the Court of Appeals' decision ruling the admission of evidence of marijuana use by the plaintiff was improperly admitted in this personal injury action.

G. Trenholm Walker, Andrew K. Epting, Jr., and Amanda R. Maybank, all of Pratt-Thomas, Epting & Walker, of Charleston, for Petitioners. County Attorney Joseph Dawson, III, Deputy County Attorney Bernard Eugene Ferrara, Jr., both of North Charleston, and John G. Frampton, of Chellis & Frampton, of Summerville, for Respondents.

These are consolidated cases on certiorari to the Court of Appeals. Petitioners are property-owners whose properties were sold at delinquent tax sales. Petitioners redeemed the properties, but paid under protest as they disputed the amount of interest owed. They then filed appeals with the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJ), which found in favor of property owners. Counties sought judicial review, and the circuit court reversed, finding the ALJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Court of Appeals held the ALJ lacked jurisdiction as this matter was not governed by the Revenue Procedures Act but was, rather, governed by the Alternate Procedures Act, therefore the circuit court had jurisdiction to resolve such disputes.

G. Trenholm Walker and Andrew K. Epting, Jr., both of Pratt-Thomas, Epting & Walker, PA, of Charleston, for Appellants. County Attorney Joseph Dawson, III, Deputy County Attorney Bernard Eugene Ferrara, Jr., both of North Charleston, M. Dawes Cooke, Jr. and P. Gunnar Nistad, both of Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondents.

This is an appeal from a circuit court order finding it lacked jurisdiction over appellants’ post-appeal motions for attorneys fees and other relief.

Teresa L. Norris, of Center for Capital Litigation, of Columbia, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia, for Respondents.

Petitioner was convicted of murder in the fatal shooting of a Rock Hill police officer which occurred in 1992, and was sentenced to death. Petitioner has filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) application, but now seeks to waive his right to pursue PCR and further appeals. The issues presented to the Supreme Court are whether the circuit judge erred in ruling Petitioner is mentally competent to waive the right to pursue PCR and whether the Eighth Amendment and international law prohibit the execution of a mentally ill person.