Please note that our new website has been designed for a minimum resolution of 1024 x 768. If you use a lower resolution (i.e. 800 x 600), you should use the printer friendly version to read the opinions.

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.

In this opinion, the Court publicly reprimands Dan David.

This is a termination of parental rights case.

In this case, the Court held Respondent's breach of fiduciary duty claims were equitable. Also, because there is no right to trial by jury for equitable actions, the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant a jury trial.

We dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

On February 21, 2006 a Greenville County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on the charges of first degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC) with a minor and lewd act upon a child. Appellant went to trial and the jury returned guilty verdicts on both charges. Appellant was sentenced to twenty years on the CSC charge and fifteen years on the lewd act charge, the sentences to run concurrently. In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court.

This is an attorney disciplinary matter.

This case involves a cross-appeal of a jury award of actual and punitive damages to the purchaser of a used automobile.

This is a cross-appeal in a case where the ALC ordered that two Certificates of Need for radiation oncology centers be issued.

Following a single vehicle accident, Respondents Sonya L. Watson and the Estate of Patricia Carter filed a products liability suit against Appellants. A jury found against Appellant Ford Motor Company and awarded Respondents $18 million in compensatory damages. On appeal, Ford argues that the trial court erred in several respects. We hold that the trial court erred in qualifying a purported cruise control expert, in admitting certain testimony, and in admitting evidence of similar incidents. Accordingly, we reverse the jury’s verdict against Ford.

We granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Sinkler v. County of Charleston, Op. No. 2008-UP-297 (S.C. Ct. App. filed June 5, 2008), in which the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's ruling that an ordinance rezoning property from an agricultural classification to a planned development district violated the Enabling Act and local zoning laws.