James E. Moore

In Hollins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the South Carolina Supreme Court had granted certiorari to review a Court of Appeals decision but later dismissed the writ as improvidently granted after briefing and argument. The petitioner then filed a petition for rehearing, and the respondent moved to strike it. The Court determined that Rule 221(a), SCACR, prohibits rehearing petitions from the denial of a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals, and that dismissing a writ as improvidently granted is equivalent to such a denial. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion to strike the rehearing petition and ended the matter.

procedure

The case concerned whether drug evidence seized from a vehicle at a drivers' license checkpoint in Greenville should be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment. The circuit court granted suppression, finding the checkpoint's primary purpose was general crime control rather than license enforcement, and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed. The court applied City of Indianapolis v. Edmond and held that evidence of the Directed Patrol Unit's involvement and the presence of a drug dog supported the finding of an unconstitutional primary purpose of narcotics interdiction. Although the opinion also discussed the Brown v. Texas balancing test for checkpoint reasonableness, the affirmance rested on the Edmond violation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an inmate, James Furtick, who was disciplined by the South Carolina Department of Corrections for possessing contraband and as a result did not earn good-time credits for that month; after his internal grievance was denied, the Administrative Law Court dismissed his appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the ground that no protected liberty interest was implicated, and the circuit court affirmed. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ALC has jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedures Act to review such disciplinary grievances. The court reasoned that South Carolina statutes create an entitlement to good-time credits for good behavior, and the potential loss or withholding of those credits implicates a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Wolff v. McDonnell and the court's own decision in Al-Shabazz v. State. The majority concluded that inmates are therefore entitled to minimal due-process review through the ALC when challenging the outcome of major disciplinary proceedings that affect sentence-related credits.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, the case involved a driver charged with driving with an unlawful alcohol concentration (DUAC) after her arrest for DUI; the arresting officer's videotape ran out midway through the incident, failing to capture the full arrest as required by S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2953(A). The municipal court upheld the conviction, finding the tape failure excused by exigent circumstances under subsection (B), but the circuit court reversed and dismissed the charge for noncompliance with the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the City's argument regarding the statutory exceptions in subsection (B) was not preserved for review because the circuit court did not address it and no post-judgment motion was made, while also rejecting the claim that prejudice must be shown for dismissal. The core reasoning focused on preservation rules for appellate review in criminal cases from municipal court and the plain requirements of the videotaping statute.

criminal lawprocedure

In Chassereau v. Global-Sun Pools, Inc., the plaintiff sued a pool company and its employee for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unlawful communication after the employee allegedly harassed her over unpaid pool installments by making repeated calls, disclosing private information, and making false statements. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on clauses in the installation and financing agreements signed during the pool purchase. The trial court denied the motion, the court of appeals affirmed, and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the claims involved outrageous and unforeseeable tortious conduct outside the scope of the arbitration agreements under principles from Aiken v. World Finance Corporation of South Carolina. The court reasoned that even broadly worded arbitration clauses are limited by contract law and do not cover torts a reasonable consumer would not have foreseen in normal business dealings. The decision focused solely on the installation agreement's clause, as arguments about the financing agreement were not preserved.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The consolidated cases concerned whether adult social hosts who knowingly serve alcohol to guests aged 18 to 20 owe a common-law duty of care to those guests or to third parties injured in resulting alcohol-related accidents. The South Carolina Supreme Court recognized such a duty, holding that a host who intentionally serves alcohol to a person the host knows or reasonably should know is between 18 and 20 is liable for damages proximately caused by that service. Because the ruling created new tort liability where none previously existed, the court applied it only prospectively to claims arising after the decision's effective date. Accordingly, the court affirmed summary judgment for the hosts in Marcum and reversed the jury verdict against the host in Barnes.

torts & liability