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.12-5-2005 - Opinions
This is an attorney disciplinary opinion in which the Court imposed an indefinite suspension.26075 - In the Matter of William T. Dunn, Jr.
This is an attorney disciplinary opinion in which the Court imposed an indefinite suspension.26076 - In the Matter of John Evander White, Jr.
This is an attorney disciplinary opinion in which the Court imposes a public reprimand.26077 - In the Matter of James T. McBratney, Jr.
This is an attorney disciplinary opinion in which the Court imposed a definite suspension.26078 - Edge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
The Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the dismissal of several causes of action against Respondent/Appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and all causes of action against Respondent South Carolina Reinsurance Facility.12-5-2005 - Orders
This order amends Comment  to Rule 3.8 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR.12-12-2005 - Opinions
This is an attorney disciplinary opinion in which the Court imposed an indefinite suspension.26080 - In the Matter of Craig J. Poff
This is an attorney disciplinary opinion in which the Court imposed a definite suspension.12-15-2005 - Opinions
This is an appeal of a trial court’s decision refusing to grant a temporary injunction on the grounds that attachment was an adequate remedy available to the Appellants. We reverse and remand.12-19-2005 - Opinions
This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court publicly reprimands an attorney.26082 - In the Matter of Sabine S. Boulware
This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court publicly reprimands an attorney.26083 - In the Matter of Michael V. Hart
This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court publicly reprimanded an attorney.26085 - Smith v. Rucker
In this case, the Court reversed the court of appeals holding that the parties held the property as joint tenants. The Court held that the parties held the property as tenants in common with a right of survivorship and, as a result, is not subject to partition.26087 - State v. Sigmon
This is a death-penalty case. Appellant was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of first-degree burglary. The jury found the following aggravating circumstances: Appellant murdered two persons by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct; Appellant committed the murder while committing burglary; and Appellant committed the murder while committing physical torture. According to Appellant, because the murder indictments did not include aggravating circumstances, he was denied his constitutional right to notice of the charges against him. Consequently, Appellant claimed, his murder convictions and death sentence had to be reversed. The Court disagreed and held that notice of aggravation given pursuant to South Carolina Code section 16-3-20(B) satisfies a defendant's right to notice of the charges against him. In addition, the Court found Appellant's death sentence proportionate to his crime. The Court therefore affirmed.12-19-2005 - Orders
This order amends Rule 608(d)(1)(E), SCACR, by changing12-28-2005 - Opinions
In this matter, the federal district court certified a question regarding underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Legislature intended, by the plain and unambiguous terms of the statute, for the insured herself to personally mark, select, and sign the UIM offer form pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 38-77-350 (2002). An offer form in which the blanks were filled in by an insurance agent or his employee in the presence of the named insured, and the form was then signed by the insured, was not properly completed and executed pursuant to the statute, such that the form may be conclusively presumed to constitute a meaningful offer of UIM coverage to the named insured.26089 - BB&T v. Pender
In this case, the Court dismissed a lower court order quashing a subpoena duces tecum, which was issued to a nonparty prior to the commencement of any procedure to enforce a judgment, as not immediately appealable. In clarifying the procedure for discovery under Rule 69, SCRCP, the Court concluded the rule requires a writ of execution be issued or supplementary proceedings initiated before discovery may be commenced.