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.
3-6-2006 - Opinions
4090 - Charleston County DSS v. Jackson
An incarcerated father appeals the family court order terminating his parental rights to his son. We reverse.
4091 - West v. Alliance Capital and Frontier Insurance Company
This workers' compensation case asks whether injuries incurred while employees were working on a personal vehicle at a job site during work time are compensable.
3-13-2006 - Opinions
4092 - Cedar Cove Homeowners Association, Inc. v. DiPietro
This action involves the interpretation and application of a subdivision's restictive covenants in the context of the homeowners' association's attempt to compel the removal, by way of a mandatory injunction, of a landowner's encroachment onto the common areas of the subdivision.
In this criminal matter, appellant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress money evidence, arguing it was obtained as the result of an illegal stop because the authorities did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based on a tip received from a confidential informant.
3-16-2006 - Opinions
4097 - In the Interest of Terrence M.
The State appeals from a family court order in which the court found it did not have jurisdiction to order a juvenile to pay restitution because the juvenile was no longer on probation. The State argues the family court erred in concluding the juvenile's probation ended when he was committed for an entirely separate crime. We reverse and remand for a de novo restitution hearing.
3-20-2006 - Opinions
4094 - City of Aiken v. Koontz
In this criminal case, appellant was convicted in abstentia. Appellant contends the trial court committed reversible error in failing to make factual findings on two issues: (1) whether appellant had notice of the trial; and (2) whether appellant was warned that the trial would proceed in his absence.
4095 - Garnett v. WRP Enterprises
Cindy Barrett Garnett brought this declaratory judgment action to determine the amount of liability coverage available to a Thrifty Car Rental customer who collided with a vehicle in which Garnett was riding. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. appeals from the trial court's ruling that limits in excess of the statutory minimum applied.
4096 - Auto-Owners Insurance v. Hamin
This is a declaratory judgment action by a homeowner contesting insurer's denial of a fire loss claim under an intentional acts exclusion.
The Respondent, Doug Proctor d/b/a Anderson Tire Recycling, brought a tort action for gross negligence against the Appellant, Department of Health and Environmental Control, under section 15-78-60(12) of the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. The Appellant answered and pled numerous defenses as to subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and/or (13) of section 15-78-60. The jury awarded the Respondent $688,503. Pursuant to section 15-78-120(a)(1), the trial court reduced the jury verdict award to $300,000. A plethora of issues are presented on appeal: (1) did the Respondent prove gross negligence under section 15-78-60(12); (2) did the trial court err in denying DHEC’s motion for directed verdict, motion for JNOV and/or motion for a new trial; (3) did the trial court err in allowing evidence of events prior to the Board’s 2000 order; (4) did the trial court err in charging the jury as to lost profits; (5) did the trial court err in failing to charge the jury as to subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and/or (13) of section 15-78-60; (6) did the trial court err in refusing DHEC’s request to limit Respondent’s damages to $9,500; and (7) was the amount of damages so unduly liberal or grossly excessive as to require a new trial absolute or a new trial nisi remittitur.
3-27-2006 - Opinions
The petitioner Willie James appeals his armed robbery conviction, arguing his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the State’s failure to provide written notice to him of its intention to seek a sentence of life imprisonment without parole as required by S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-45(H) (2003).