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.11-6-2006 - Opinions
When a South Carolina order of child support did not explicitly nullify a previous California order of support under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 20-7-960 to 1170 (1985), both orders remained extant and enforceable. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.26219 - In the Interest of Amir X. S.
This case involves a constitutional attack on a statute defining the offense of disturbing schools. The family court upheld the statute’s constitutionality and subsequently adjudicated Appellant delinquent for violating the statute. We affirm in part and vacate in part.26220 - State v. Evans
The Court affirmed Appellant’s death sentence. Appellant’s claim that the jury should have been charged on an additional statutory mitigating circumstance during sentencing was not preserved for review.11-6-2006 - Orders
This is an order transferring an attorney to incapacity inactive status.ORDER - Amendments to the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules
The Court has added a new rule to the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules allowing attorneys licensed to practice in foreign jurisdictions to be admitted to practice asORDER - In the Matter of Charles N. Pearman
This order places Charles N. Pearman on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17(a), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, based on the fact that he has been charged with soliciting prostitution and impersonating a law enforcement officer.ORDER - In the Matter of William Franklin Troup Partridge, III
This is an order placing an attorney on interim suspension.11-13-2006 - Opinions
This is a judicial disciplinary opinion in which the Court publicly reprimanded a magistrate.26222 - Hurst v. East Coast Hockey
The Court affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondents based on primary implied assumption of risk.11-20-2006 - Opinions
In this appeal, we are asked to decide the novel issue of whether a private treatment center owes a duty to exercise reasonable care in supervising a mentally retarded person admitted to its care; the novel issue of whether a state agency which has a contract with the center owes a duty of care to the person; and whether the mentally retarded person in this case, as a matter of law, proximately caused her own injuries.26223 - In the Matter of Greenwood County Magistrate Joe C. Cantrell
This is a judicial disciplinary opinion in which the Court suspended a magistrate for one year.26224 - In the Matter of Former Williamsburg County Magistrate and Former Greeleyville Municipal Court Judge Bruster O’Neal Harvin
This is a judicial disciplinary opinion in which the Court imposed a public reprimand.26225 - In the Matter of Sumter County Master-in-Equity Linwood S. Evans, Jr.
This is a judicial disciplinary opinion in which the Court suspended a master-in-equity for one year.26226 - In the Matter of Rosalyn Kimberly Grigsby
This is an attorney disciplinary opinion in which the Court imposed a two year suspension from the practice of law.26227 - Ellison v. Frigidaire Home Products
In this workers' compensation case, the Court construes section 42-9-400 to allow recovery for the combined effects of a workplace injury and pre-existing conditions.26228 - In the Matter of Brigina Dicks-Woolridge
This is an attorney disciplinary matter.26229 - State v. Davis
The issue in this criminal case involves the admission of hearsay evidence under the excited utterance exception and a harmless error analysis.11-21-2006 - Orders
This is an order placing an attorney on interim suspension.11-27-2006 - Opinions
The issue in this PCR case involves whether the PCR court erred in finding ineffective assistance of plea counsel.26231 - James v. Horace Mann Insurance Company
Respondents filed this action against Appellant, alleging bad faith in handling an insurance claim. A jury awarded Respondents $146,600 actual damages and $1,000,000 punitive damages. This Court affirmed.