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.
1-4-2019 - Opinions
The Court answers the certified question from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, "The 2005 amendments to section 15-3-640 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2018) did not supersede the Supreme Court of South Carolina's decision in Ocean Winds Corp. of Johns Island v. Lane, 347 S.C. 416, 556 S.E.2d 377 (2001)."
The Court certified an appeal to the court of appeals to review the trial court's dismissal of Appellant's case, alleging Act 275 of 2016 violated article III, section 17 of the South Carolina Constitution (the One Subject Rule). We hold Act 275 complies with the One Subject Rule.1-16-2019 - Opinions
Daryl Snow appeals his commitment as a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. He argues his diagnosis of Other Specified Personality Disorder is legally insufficient to meet the constitutional and statutory requirements for commitment under the Act, and thus the trial court erred when it denied his motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The court of appeals affirmed his commitment in an unpublished opinion. We affirm the court of appeals.
The Court found disbarment was the appropriate sanction to impose upon respondent as reciprocal discipline following her resignation in lieu of discipline from the Texas State Bar.1-23-2019 - Opinions
The Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals's decision in State v. Cardwell, 414 S.C. 416, 778 S.E.2d 483 (Ct. App. 2015), wherein the Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court's denial of a motion to suppress a video file seized from Cardwell's computer. We affirm as modified.1-30-2019 - Opinions
The Court reverses the court of appeals and remands to the trial court for a new trial, finding it was an abuse of discretion to permit the State's expert, Detective Hunnicutt, to testify to the weight of the marijuana.