Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
Court of Appeals Published Opinions - November 2007

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.

11-2-2007 - Opinions

4279 - Linda Mc Company v. Shore

In this opinion, the Court of Appeals affirms the circuit court's issuance of an order to execute and levy a judgment against appellants.

11-8-2007 - Opinions

4309 - Brazell v. Windsor

The contract breach involved in this case was determined not to be fundamental and substantial enough to defeat the purpose of the contract, and the appellants are not entitled to the remedy of rescission.

4310 - State v. Frazier

The court determined there was sufficient substantial circumstantial evidence to submit the charge of murder to the jury and that the defendant's confrontational rights were not violated, but that the trial court should have directed a verdict of not guilty on the charge of armed robbery.

11-20-2007 - Opinions

4311 - Green Tree Servicing v. Adams

This case addresses the effect of failure to serve a junior lienholder.

11-27-2007 - Opinions

4312 - State v. Tumbleston

In this criminal appeal, two issues are presented: 1) Did Appellant’s four indictments, which alleged separate, undated events over the course of several years, not give him adequate notice of charges to prepare a defense; and (2) Did the circuit court err by denying Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict, when the State’s evidence was insufficient to show that Appellant committed the alleged offenses?

4313 - Peake v. SCDMV

The direct and relevant issue involved in this appeal relates to the efficacy of section 56-5-2950 of the South Carolina Code of Laws.

4314 - McGriff v. Worsley Companies

The accident and resulting injuries suffered by a convenience store clerk arose out of and in the course of employment, entitling him to workers' compensation benefits.

4315 - Todd v. Joyner

The court affirms the trial court's various evidentiary rulings and also affirms the denial of the motion for a new trial nisi additur.

4316 - Lynch v. Toys “R” Us-Delaware

In this cross appeal, Toys “R” Us and Luba Lynch appeal various issues arising from a jury verdict in favor of Lynch. Toys “R” Us argues the circuit court erred by: (1) granting a directed verdict to Lynch rather than to Toys “R” Us on the false imprisonment cause of action; (2) denying its directed verdict/judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) motion on the causes of action for malicious prosecution, slander, and outrage; (3) denying its motion for a new trial absolute based on juror misconduct and the thirteenth juror doctrine; and (4) denying its motion for a new trial nisi remittitur. Lynch argues the circuit court erred in requiring her to elect a remedy. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

4317 - State v. Lynch

In this criminal case, we affirm the trial court's holding that an inmate was not entitled to be advised of his Miranda rights when he spoke to a t.v. reporter.

11-30-2007 - Opinions

4318 - State v. Swafford

This case discusses the third-party guilt evidentiary rule.

4319 - State v. Woods

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Anthony Woods for first-degree burglary and ABHAN. On appeal, Woods claimed the trial court committed reversible error when it denied his motion to suppress Woods’ hair, blood, and saliva samples. Woods claimed his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated because the State did not establish that the police submitted a sworn affidavit or made a statement under oath to support the order. Consequently, the Court of Appeals found the trial judge failed to properly issue the search warrant as mandated by Section 17-13-140 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2006) so the admission of the hair, blood, and saliva samples was improper. However, because overwhelming evidence was presented to conclusively establish Woods’ guilt, the admission of the evidence was harmless error.