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.
5-6-2002 - Opinions
Primary issue is whether Lanham made a false representation with the actual intent to deceive on health insurance application; also, issue of whether trial court erred in granting summary judgment prior to ruling on motion to compel.
This is a direct appeal challenging the constitutionality of statutes which outlaw trapping beaver out of season without a permit.
This is a death penalty habeas case challenging the application of a new rule on direct appeal.
Possession of cocaine is a lesser included offense of possession of crack cocaine.
This is a direct appeal challenging a Charleston County ordinance which enacts a property tax exemption.
Reckless homicide is not a lesser included offense of murder.
This auto insurance case determines the validity of an automatic termination clause.5-20-2002 - Opinions
The Court of Appeals' decision holding the county assessor had not shown that her termination violated public policy is affirmed.
Only parties authorized by the annexation statute, or the State through a quo warranto suit, having standing to challenge a municipal annexation.
Issue is whether taxi cab driver who was murdered while on duty was an employee or an independent contractor.
Answering certified question from Federal District Court, Supreme Court declines to adopt Firefighter's Rule as a defense to negligence action brought by police officer.
This appeal involves the following issues: (1) whether the Sexually Violent Predator Act violates the ex post facto, due process, and double jeopardy clauses of the United States and South Carolina Constitutions; (2) whether appellant was properly found to be a sexually violent predator; and (3) whether the trial court violated appellant's right to due process by allowing the use of a motion appellant filed challenging the constitutionality of the age of sexual consent to prove appellant's need for treatment.
This case addresses whether the survivability statute applies to fraud and deceit actions brought under the Dealers Act.
The issues in this appeal concern whether ABHAN is a lesser included offense of 1st degree CSC and the propriety of the solicitor's closing argument.5-28-2002 - Opinions
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals decision in Loadholt v. South Carolina Budget and Control Bd., 339 S.C. 165, 528 S.E.2d 670 (Ct. App. 2000) dismissed as improvidently granted.
Summary judgment was properly granted to the governmental defendants because no “special duty”to these plaintiffs is created by S.C. Code Ann. §§44-17-430 et seq.
This opinion answers certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina involving interpretation of the South Carolina Code, inlcuding section 12-21-2804(B), sections 32-1-10 and 32-1-20, and section 39-5-10 et seq.