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

This case involved a fee dispute between a Georgia hospital and a South Carolina workers' compensation insurer over payment for medical services provided in Georgia to a South Carolina employee injured on the job in South Carolina. The South Carolina Supreme Court addressed a certified question from federal district court asking whether the state's Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over the dispute and whether any such jurisdiction is exclusive. The court held that the Commission does not have jurisdiction. Its reasoning was that state statutes like those governing workers' compensation generally have no extraterritorial effect outside the state's borders, and the contract for medical services here was made and performed entirely in Georgia.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves ongoing post-divorce litigation between Deena Buckley and E. Wade Shealy over compliance with 1993 and 1995 family court orders requiring assignment of a note, various payments, and life insurance for the children. After a 1997 mediation produced an unsigned and disputed settlement agreement that was never entered as a court order, the family court in 2004 declined to enforce that agreement, awarded Buckley $162,806.13 plus interest from the prior judgments, increased child support to $2,400 per month, and granted Shealy an equitable set-off of $97,629.62 for alleged overpayments. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the refusal to enforce the 1997 agreement, the monetary award, and the child-support amount, but reversed the set-off. The core reasoning was that the 1997 agreement was never properly presented to or approved by the court and failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Rule 43(k), SCRCP, rendering any equitable credit based on it improper.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Heath, a jury convicted Ted Lee Heath of trafficking in crack cocaine after police executing a search warrant found 43.48 grams of the drug in a car-washing mitt inside a recycling bin near the back door of the house where he lived with his mother. Heath appealed, arguing he was entitled to a directed verdict. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the conviction, ruling that the state failed to prove Heath was in constructive possession of the crack. The court explained that the state presented no direct or circumstantial evidence linking Heath to the drugs and that his mere presence at premises owned by his mother did not establish the required dominion and control over the area where the drugs were found.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose when a cellular customer sued SunCom in state circuit court for breach of contract after being charged a $200 early termination fee upon canceling her service agreement. The circuit court stayed the proceedings and directed SunCom to obtain a declaratory ruling from the FCC on whether the fee qualified as a "rate charged" under federal law. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court dismissed the case, holding that an order granting a stay is interlocutory and not immediately appealable under S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330 because it does not decide the merits, affect a substantial right by preventing a later appeal, or fall within any other statutory category for immediate review. The court overruled prior precedent that had allowed direct appeals from stay orders and noted the plaintiff could seek to lift the stay if the FCC proceeding caused undue delay.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a challenge by the South Carolina Public Interest Foundation and an individual to the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's determination that a candidate for a circuit court judgeship met the residency requirements for the position. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the issue was a nonjusticiable political question, and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed this ruling. The court reasoned that the state constitution assigns the authority to establish and oversee the qualifications process for judicial candidates to the General Assembly, making such determinations matters for the legislative branch rather than the judiciary under the political question doctrine and separation of powers principles. Plaintiffs had alternative avenues to challenge residency through election boards.

electionsprocedure

This case arose from the divorce of Miriam M. Gardner and James Troy Gardner after 45 years of marriage, during which the wife sought separate support, alimony, and equitable distribution of marital property; the husband died while litigation was pending, leading to substitution of his estate's personal representative. The family court identified, valued, and divided the marital assets 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband's estate. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that assets are valued as of the filing date of the marital litigation and that any post-separation appreciation or depreciation must be assessed across the entire marital estate rather than individual assets, after the family court properly considered statutory equitable-distribution factors.

family lawproperty

Nance v. Ozmint concerned a death-sentenced inmate's post-conviction relief application alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial for murder, rape, burglary, and related offenses. After the U.S. Supreme Court vacated an earlier grant of relief and remanded for reconsideration under Florida v. Nixon, the South Carolina Supreme Court again reversed the denial of relief and ordered a new trial. The court held that trial counsel's complete failure to investigate, challenge the state's evidence, or advocate for the defendant amounted to a total breakdown of the adversarial process under United States v. Cronic, so prejudice was presumed without the need for a Strickland showing.

criminal lawprocedure

This workers' compensation case arose when an employee of Willowglen Academy was injured on a date covered by both an assigned-risk policy from Travelers and a voluntary policy from United Heartland. The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that United was solely responsible for the claim. The court held that the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Plan has the force of law and provides that an employer's assigned-risk coverage terminates automatically upon procurement of voluntary insurance, even without formal cancellation or notice. It further determined that the Plan operates alongside the workers' compensation regulations and controls the outcome here despite the later effective date of Travelers' renewal policy.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

Jane Smith filed a lawsuit against John Doe to establish paternity and obtain child support for their adult daughter Danielle, who has mental disabilities preventing her from supporting herself. The court determined that Doe is Danielle's father based on DNA testing and that he has a continuing obligation to provide support even after she reached the age of majority due to her disability. It further held that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations because South Carolina law imposes no time limit on paternity actions and the support duty is ongoing for unemancipated disabled children. The court affirmed the family court's award of $91 per week in child support, which followed state guidelines and accounted for Danielle's other income sources.

family law

The case concerned whether Sean Callen and Page Durkee Callen had formed a common-law marriage, which would allow Page to proceed with a divorce action in South Carolina family court. The family court found that a common-law marriage existed based on the parties' cohabitation and reputation in the community and awarded attorney fees to Page. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that the family court applied the wrong legal standard by failing to account for an impediment to marriage (Sean's prior marriage to a third party) and the requirement that the parties form a new mutual agreement to marry after the impediment's removal. The court remanded for a new hearing on the marriage issue, without addressing the sufficiency of the evidence under the correct standard.

family law

In Byrd v. City of Hartsville, landowner Phelix Byrd sued the City for inverse condemnation after it delayed action on his rezoning petitions for nearly a year to avoid jeopardizing a National Historic Landmark designation on his former farmland, which caused him to lose potential buyers; the City later approved the rezoning and Byrd eventually sold parcels once county tax flags were removed years later. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the City on the inverse-condemnation claim, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The Court held that no regulatory taking occurred under the Penn Central factors because the delay was temporary, did not deprive Byrd of all economically viable use of the property, and served the legitimate public interest of preserving the landmark without evidence of bad faith by the City. The opinion also clarified that the four-element test for inverse condemnation no longer requires a showing of permanence and that partial economic losses do not automatically qualify as takings.

property

Jessie Peterson, a service attendant, was injured when an Amtrak train derailed after a street sweeper collided with CSX-owned tracks, knocking them out of alignment. Peterson and his wife sued Amtrak and CSX under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), claiming the railroads negligently maintained the tracks in violation of federal standards and their own internal policies. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed that result. Applying federal standards, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence of sufficient quality and weight to show that any negligence by the railroads played a part in causing the injury. Although internal policies could be admissible to show breach, the record did not demonstrate a violation of federal track safety regulations that contributed to the derailment.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

This case concerned whether Nancy Thomasson could inherit from John Thomas Neely's estate as his daughter after his siblings challenged her paternity following his death intestate. The probate court initially appointed her personal representative but later ruled she was not his biological child based on DNA evidence and found no prior adjudication of paternity in the parents' divorce decree. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that probate courts have subject matter jurisdiction to determine paternity for heirship purposes under the Probate Code, but reversed on the second issue, concluding the divorce decree (which referenced the child born to the marriage and was never contested) constituted a final prior adjudication that bound the siblings as well.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case concerned an appeal from a probate court order in an estate matter to the circuit court. The circuit court dismissed the appeal for failure to file the notice of appeal in the circuit court within ten days of receiving the probate order, as mandated by South Carolina Code section 62-1-308(a). The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that the statute's plain language requires the notice to be filed—meaning delivered and received—in the circuit court within the ten-day period, and that evidence of mailing alone does not establish timely filing.

procedure