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.

26059 - Owners Insurance Company v. Salmonsen

The Court determines the meaning of "occurrence" in a commercial general liability insurance policy in the context of a products liability case.

26060 - Tillotson v. Keith Smith Builders

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.

26061 - State v. Bowie

This opinion affirms a portion of the Court of Appeals' decision below, but vacates the portion of the opinion below dealing with the issue of standing as the issue was not properly before the Court of Appeals.

This is an order reinstating an attorney to the practice of law.

26062 - Brown v. Berkeley County

The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and held that the Berkeley County Council’s resolution authorizing a special audit of the Clerk of Court’s Office articulated the “functional equivalent” of necessity. The Court also held that the denial of a motion to dismiss brought by individual members of the Berkeley County Council was interlocutory and not immediately appealable.

26063 - Smith v. Doe

The Court held that an action for paternity and child support on behalf of a disabled adult was not barred by the statute of limitations.

26064 - In the Matter of Darren S. Haley

This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court definitely suspended an attorney.

26065 - In the Matter of Lillie R. Davis

This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court definitely suspended an attorney.

26066 - In the Matter of Timothy Vincent Norton

This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court indefinitely suspended an attorney.

Walter Henry Smith was placed on interim suspension and John Barron McArthur was appointed as the attorney to protect clients' interests.

26067 - In the Matter of Damon Eugene Cook

This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court imposed a definite suspension.

26068 - In the Matter of Todd Anthony Strich

This is a disciplinary matter in which the Court imposed a definite suspension.

26069 - In the Matter of Tara Anderson Thompson

This is a disciplinary opinin in which the Court disbarred an attorney.

26070 - Brackenbrook North Charleston v. Charleston County

The Court affirmed the circuit court order declining to award appellants attorneys' fees pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 15-77-300, and declining to entertain their "Motion to determine Compliance with the Supreme Court Order.

26071 - State v. Bowman

This capital case involves issues regarding subject matter jurisdiction, an instruction to the jury, suppression of evidence and whether a mistrial should have been granted.

26072 - Kennedy v. Scott Edward Griffin

In this personal injury case, the Court dismisses cert previously granted to review the Court of Appeals' decision reversing the admission of evidence regarding the plaintiff's use of marijuana that was unrelated to the wreck.

26073 - Vaught v. A. O. Hardee & Sons

In this case, the Court set forth the measure of damages for damaged/destroyed noncommercial trees, shrubs, and related vegetation. The Court concluded the trial court erred in excluding evidence of replacement costs and reversed the trial court’s 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.