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.
1-22-2020 - Opinions
Horry County filed an action in magistrates court to eject Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc., from a hangar at the Grand Strand Airport in North Myrtle Beach. The magistrates court found Skydive did not have any right to occupy the hangar, and ejected Skydive. The circuit court affirmed. Skydive appealed to the court of appeals, which dismissed the appeal on the ground it was moot. We reverse the court of appeals because we hold the appeal is not moot. On the merits, we agree with the magistrates court and the circuit court that Skydive has no right to occupy the hangar. Thus, we affirm the circuit court and uphold the result of the court of appeals' dismissal.
The Court accepted an Agreement for Discipline by Consent entered into between Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in which Respondent admitted his conduct violated provisions of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court suspend Respondent from the practice of law for three years, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension.
We issued a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in State v. Simpson, 425 S.C. 522, 823 S.E.2d 229 (Ct. App. 2019). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.1-29-2020 - Opinions
The Court granted the State a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in State v. Hardin, 425 S.C. 1, 819 S.E.2d 177 (Ct. App. 2018). We hold the State is not an aggrieved party in this case; therefore, we dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
John Henry Dial Jr. appeals his conviction of two counts of assault and battery in the third degree, arguing the magistrates court did not advise him of the dangers of proceeding without counsel. Because the record does not indicate the magistrates court advised Dial of the dangers of self-representation, we remand to the circuit court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Dial knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.
The Court reverses the court of appeals' decision in Rose v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, & Pardon Services, Op. No. 2018-UP-087 (S.C. Ct. App. filed June 13, 2018), and finds the decision of the administrative law court was supported by substantial evidence.
The Hensleys filed this lawsuit against the South Carolina Department of Social Services on behalf of their adopted minor child BLH and a class of approximately 4000 similarly situated adopted children. The circuit court issued an order finding the Hensleys satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and certifying the proposed class. The court of appeals reversed. We find the circuit court's order is not immediately appealable. We vacate the court of appeals' opinion and dismiss the appeal.