Court of Appeals Published Opinions -
October 2001
Note: Beginning in June 2012, opinions will be posted as Adobe PDFs. You can download a free copy of Adobe Reader here.
The summary following each opinion is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what a particular opinion decides. The summary is not necessarily a full description of the issues discussed in an opinion.
10-1-2001 - Opinions
This appeal concerns the authority of the family court to terminate alimony upon a showing that the supported spouse is involved in a relationship that is tantamount to marriage.
Plaintiff sued attorney general and solicitor, individually and in their official capacities, seeking damages resulting from their alleged violations of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and common law tortious conduct. The Court of Appeals held: (1) a prosecutor is immune from personal liability under § 1983 or the South Carolina Tort Claims Act for actions relating to the prosecution of an individual as a criminal defendant — regardless of the prosecutor's motivation — provided the actions complained of were committed while the prosecutor was acting as an "advocate," as defined by Imbler v. Pachtman and its progeny; and (2) a prosecutor cannot be sued in his official capacity under either § 1983 for money damages or the Tort Claims Act when the acts complained of were "judicial" or "quasi-judicial" in nature.
10-15-2001 - Opinions
3393 - Vick v. S.C. Department of Transportation
This opinion discusses the law of implied dedication of private property to public use and the availability of interest as a component of damages in an inverse condemnation action.
In this appeal, Husband seeks relief from a voluntary dismissal of an action for divorce and equitable division.
10-29-2001 - Opinions
3395 - Newton v. Progressive Northwestern Insurance
Newton, a Georgia resident, seeks reformation of his automobile insurance policy with Progressive Northwestern Insurance Co. to include uninsured motorist coverage. He argues that the South Carolina Financial Responsibility Act requires this reformation.
This appeal concerns the right of a widow to bring an action in the court of common pleas under the Statute of Elizabeth to set aside an inter vivos conveyance by her now deceased husband.
Appellants's conviction was affirmed because a Doyle violation was not established when no evidence existed in the record that Appellant was given Miranda warnings.
This is a domestic action in which the husband appeals from several aspects of the family court's order, including: (1) inclusion of predistributed property in the marital estate for purposes of equitable distribution; (2) the award of alimony to the wife; (3) an order requiring the husband to secure the equitable distribution and alimony obligations with life insurance policy; (4) the finding of certain factual determinations; and (5) the award of attorney fees to the wife.