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.8-3-2016 - Opinions
Daniel Bernard Dorn and E.D., R.D., and Y.D. (collectively, Appellants) appeal the circuit court's order dismissing their appeal of the probate court's order adding a party after the conclusion of Dorn's case-in-chief as not immediately appealable. Appellants contend the probate court's order, which added Abbie Ilene Dorn (Abbie) as a party to Dorn's petition to remove Abbie's parents, Paul S. Cohen, M.D. and Susan Cohen (collectively, the Cohens), as the coconservators and cotrustees of the Abbie Dorn Special Needs Trust (the Trust), was immediately appealable because it affected Dorn's substantial right to name his own defendant and to control the presentation of evidence at trial. We affirm the circuit court's order.5433 - The Winthrop University Trustees v. Pickens Roofing
In this case arising from an extensive roof fire, a jury awarded the Winthrop University Trustees for the State of South Carolina (Winthrop) $7,223,343.14 in damages against Pickens Roofing and Sheet Metals, Inc. (Pickens). On appeal, Pickens argues the circuit court erred in (1) denying its motion for a new trial absolute based on the court's refusal to strike a juror for cause; (2) denying its directed verdict motion as to liability; (3) failing to properly recharge the jury on proximate cause; (4) bifurcating the liability and damages phases of trial; (5) denying its directed verdict motion as to damages; and (6) failing to adjust the jury's damages verdict to reflect Winthrop's comparative negligence. We affirm.5434 - The Callawassie Island v. Dennis
Ronnie D. Dennis and Jeanette Dennis (Appellants) appeal the circuit court's grant of the Callawassie Island Members Club, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment.5435 - State v. Porch
Joshua Porch appeals his conviction for murder, arguing the trial court erred in failing to void the State's arrest warrant. Porch also argues the trial court erred by limiting Porch's testimony in violation of the Confrontation Clause. We affirm.5436 - Vicary v. Town of Awendaw
The Town of Awendaw (the Town) appeals the circuit court's final order, arguing the court erred in finding (1) Lynne Vicary, Kent Prause, and the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League had standing; (2) the Town never received a proper petition requesting the 2004 annexation; (3) the Town falsely claimed it had a proper petition to annex United States Forest Service (the Forest Service) property; (4) the Town was estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense; and (5) the statutory time period for challenging the 2004 annexation was tolled.5437 - First South Bank v. Rosenberg
The estate of Philip J. Brust appeals the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of First South Bank (First South) as well as its denial of Brust's motion to amend his answer and counterclaim. Brust argues the court erred in (1) granting First South's motion for summary judgment because it ignored questions of fact regarding the scope of authority granted under a specific limited power of attorney (the POA), Brust's knowledge of a guaranty's scope, the effect of subsequent loan modifications, and Brust's proposed counterclaims against First South; and (2) denying Brust's motion to amend because it incorrectly relied upon the doctrine of res judicata rather than deciding the motion under Rule 15, SCRCP. We affirm as modified.8-31-2016 - Opinions
On appeal from the circuit court, the court of appeals reverses the denial of Developers' motion for a nonjury trial and to strike Homeowners' class action allegations. In its decision to reverse the circuit court, the court of appeals concludes Developers timely raised the mode of trial issues to the circuit court, and therefore, it was error to find Developers' motion was untimely. Further, the court held Homeowners could not retroactively amend the master deed to remove the jury trial and class action waivers and found Homeowners voluntarily and knowingly waived their rights, which were conspicuously and unambiguously set forth in the master deed.