Robert Foster Chapman

This case involved a tire retail company suing its supplier, Firestone, for damages from allegedly defective radial tires, asserting claims including breach of warranty, breach of contract, and misrepresentation. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint after finding undisputed evidence that the plaintiff's principals had submitted approximately 600 forged or falsified tire adjustment forms over three years to obtain improper handling fees and billing credits from Firestone. The core reasoning applied the clean hands doctrine, concluding that the plaintiff's fraudulent conduct in the underlying dealer transactions barred it from obtaining relief, as its presence in court would undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case is a pharmaceutical product liability action in which plaintiff Nancy Ryan alleges she developed a pre-cancerous condition due to her mother's prenatal ingestion of DES in 1952-1953 to prevent miscarriage. The complaint named multiple drug manufacturers as defendants and asserted claims including negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, and conspiracy, but after years of discovery the plaintiff could not identify which company made the specific DES tablets taken by her mother. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims, holding that product liability requires proof of a causal link between the defendant manufacturer and the injurious product, which is the law in both North and South Carolina, and that the plaintiff had failed to produce any admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on this element.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case involved a South Carolina resident suing an insurance company in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for breach of a disability insurance contract after the company denied coverage following a stroke and demanded return of an initial payment. The plaintiff alleged both a contract claim for monthly benefits and a tort claim for bad faith refusal to pay. The court dismissed the tort claim, reasoning that South Carolina courts would not recognize a cause of action for tortious breach of the duty of good faith in voluntary disability insurance policies, as opposed to mandatory coverage, and that creating such a new right is a legislative function. With only the contract claim remaining, which sought less than the required jurisdictional amount, the court dismissed the entire action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from the 1977 murders of two teenagers by three men, one of whom was an off-duty U.S. Army soldier; the father of one victim sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that government employees at Fort Jackson negligently failed to provide adequate treatment for the soldier's drug and psychological issues, thereby proximately causing the deaths. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing among other grounds that the FTCA's exception for claims arising out of assault or battery barred the suit. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for tort claims arising out of assault or battery even when the complaint is framed in terms of antecedent negligence by government employees. The court relied on the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) and precedents interpreting the FTCA's exceptions as precluding jurisdiction over such claims.

torts & liabilityfederal power

The case involved claims by two oil companies against a husband and wife alleging a fraudulent scheme in a 1972 transaction in which the plaintiffs transferred an oil lease interest in exchange for stock and other consideration that was never properly delivered, with the defendants allegedly retaining the lease and its profits. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the federal securities claims under Rule 10b-5 and dismissal of the pendent state claims. The court granted the motion, holding that the federal claims were time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations from the South Carolina Blue Sky Law, which the court adopted following Fourth Circuit precedent in O’Hara v. Kovens over its own prior decision, because the facts putting the plaintiffs on inquiry notice were available by 1974. With the federal claims dismissed, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims for fraud, breach of contract, and conversion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved consolidated actions by the United States, through the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, seeking to declare void tax deeds issued by Richland County, South Carolina, on four properties and to confirm federal title and possession. HUD had acquired interests in the properties through mortgage foreclosures after defaults by subsequent purchasers, but the county levied and sold the properties at tax sales for 1970 real estate taxes assessed against an earlier owner without naming the United States as a party. The court ruled the tax deeds null and void, ordered the Secretary's title confirmed where deeds had been obtained, and permitted foreclosure proceedings on the remaining properties. It reasoned that the county's actions violated the Supremacy Clause by attempting to extinguish a federal property interest without complying with the procedures of 28 U.S.C. § 2410, which requires a judicial action naming the United States as a party.

taxespropertyfederal power

This case involved three defendants charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute approximately 9,900 tablets of the controlled substance Methaqualone, and with possession with intent to distribute, following a warrantless search of a suitcase and arrests at the Columbia, South Carolina airport. After a suppression hearing and bench trial for two defendants, the court denied the motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the suitcase. The court found that DEA agents had developed reasonable suspicion based on a drug courier profile and subsequent observations of nervous behavior and evasive actions by the defendants when claiming the luggage, which justified the stop, questioning, and eventual seizure. Based on the evidence, the court convicted defendants Masiello on both counts and Beckham on the conspiracy count only, while acquitting Beckham on the possession count.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a challenge to the denial of Social Security disability benefits claimed by the plaintiff due to back problems following spinal fusion surgery. The district court reviewed exceptions to a magistrate's report recommending remand to the Secretary for additional medical evaluations, a determination on whether the spinal fusion had healed, and compliance with prior case law requiring specific findings on vocational capacity. The court decided to affirm the Secretary's decision denying benefits. It reasoned that an orthopedic evaluation was already in the record, evidence showed minimal pain not preventing work, the new Vocational Factors Regulations had superseded the requirements of Taylor v. Weinberger, and the Secretary had properly applied those regulations using criteria such as age, education, experience, and residual functional capacity to find the plaintiff could perform numerous unskilled jobs.

federal powerlabor & employment

The case involved Volkswagenwerk AG suing Richard Hoffman, owner of an independent auto repair shop called The Bug House, for trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal law. VWAG claimed that Hoffman's use of the word "Bug" in his trade name and advertising, along with other VW-related terms and imagery, infringed on its common law and registered marks for its vehicles. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact and determining that Hoffman's practices created a likelihood of confusion among the public as to the source or affiliation of his services. It permanently enjoined Hoffman from using the protected marks in his business name or promotions, with limited exceptions for purely descriptive uses in equal-sized text.

business & regulatory

In McFadden v. Amoco Oil Co., a service station franchisee sought a preliminary injunction under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq.) to prevent termination of his lease after he signed a cancellation agreement based on a medical diagnosis of phlebitis that later proved incorrect. The plaintiff argued for rescission of the agreement on grounds of mutual mistake of fact regarding his health condition that had prompted him to exit the business. The court denied the injunction and granted summary judgment to Amoco and the incoming operator, holding that the mistaken diagnosis was a collateral matter rather than a material fact forming the basis of the contract, and that the defendants had changed their positions in reliance on the voluntary termination. The decision applied the Act's standards for equitable relief alongside traditional contract principles requiring that any mistake be central to the parties' intent and conduct.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) seeking summary judgment to collect on a defaulted promissory note of $34,500 originally issued by defendant S. N. Aroneck to American Bank and Trust (later acquired by FDIC as receiver), along with related collateral assigned by defendant Arrow Investment Corporation. The defendants admitted the note's execution, default, and demand for payment but asserted defenses of usury from prior notes, fraudulent inducement in the purchase of bank stock in violation of federal securities laws, and a Regulation U margin violation (the last of which was withdrawn). The court granted the motion, holding that there were no genuine disputes of material fact and that the remaining defenses were legally insufficient, awarding FDIC the principal balance, adjusted interest, and attorney's fees while ordering delivery of the collateral note and mortgage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a South Carolina corporation suing a New York telephone company in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for lost business opportunities and other damages allegedly caused by interruptions in WATS and local telephone service and errors in white and yellow pages directory listings following the plaintiff's office relocation. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, holding that the plaintiff could not recover beyond the limits set by South Carolina Public Service Commission and Federal Communications Commission tariffs. The core reasoning was that the tariffs restrict liability for service delays and interruptions to pro rata allowances, there was no evidence of gross negligence or willful conduct to convert the contract claims into tort, white pages issues were governed by commission rules, and yellow pages advertising was a private contract limiting recovery to the ad cost if paid.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) seeking to enforce two promissory notes originally issued to a failed bank, American Bank & Trust, one secured by a mortgage on a condominium project and another on an apartment project. The defendants admitted to executing the notes and related agreements but raised affirmative defenses claiming that the bank breached construction loan agreements by halting funding after entering receivership, causing them damages, and sought a stay pending another lawsuit. The court granted the FDIC's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact, as the defendants could not produce evidence of a written construction loan agreement, their counterclaims lacked merit, and the requested stay was not warranted. The court awarded the FDIC the amounts due on the notes, including interest and fees, and ordered foreclosure on the mortgaged property.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case involved a lawsuit by South Carolina plaintiffs against American Motors Sales Corporation (a Michigan company) and a local resident defendant, alleging wrongful termination of a motor vehicle franchise agreement in violation of state law. The dispute reached federal court after the defendant removed the action from state court during trial, claiming that plaintiffs' closing arguments had effectively dismissed their claims against the resident defendant and created complete diversity of citizenship. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand and ruled that the removal was proper and timely under federal statutes because the case had become removable once the local defendant was no longer a party. It further held that all state-court proceedings after the removal papers were filed, including the jury verdict, were null and void for lack of jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation seeking to enforce a written guaranty agreement against several defendants who had guaranteed payment of all indebtedness of Terracorp, Inc. to American Bank & Trust up to $135,000. The defendants admitted signing the agreement but claimed the debt had been paid in full and raised no other defenses, with one defendant discharged via bankruptcy. The court found the defense without merit under South Carolina law because the guaranty was continuing in nature, required written notice of termination which was never given, prohibited parol evidence to vary its terms, and lacked any evidence of payment or consideration for an alleged subsequent termination agreement. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the plaintiff against the remaining defendants for $135,000.

business & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff who, after separating from her husband, sought to open a new utility account in her name with the defendant company but was refused due to an outstanding balance on her husband's account for the same residence. The plaintiff claimed this violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by discriminating based on sex and marital status. The court decided that the defendant's policy did not violate the ECOA, as the refusal was based on the existing debt rather than prohibited factors, and the plaintiff had received credit through implied contract for services used. The court further reasoned that the policy aligned with state public service commission regulations and did not improperly deny due process rights.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff seeking to publish an advertisement in the South Carolina Bar's Transcript publication to recruit local counsel for litigation against other attorneys, which the publication rejected due to concerns over solicitation and editorial policies. The plaintiff sued the bar, its officers, and the state Supreme Court justices under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First Amendment free speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights, claiming the refusal constituted improper state action. The court granted the motion to dismiss the Supreme Court justices for failure to state a claim, as they had no direct involvement in the publication decisions, and denied the preliminary injunction, reasoning that the Transcript was a private trade publication not operating as a public forum, and the refusal was rationally related to legitimate editorial objectives without violating constitutional protections.

free speechcivil rights

This case concerned Bob Jones University's challenge to the IRS's revocation of its tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, after the agency determined that the university's policies against interracial dating and marriage constituted racial discrimination. The university had paid a small FUTA tax and sought a refund, arguing that its religious and educational mission entitled it to exemption regardless of those policies. The district court ruled in favor of the university, finding it qualified as a tax-exempt religious and educational organization. The court's core reasoning rested on the statutory text listing "religious" and "educational" purposes separately from "charitable," supported by legislative history showing Congress did not intend to limit exemptions to organizations meeting common-law charitable trust definitions, and on the distinction between public policy considerations and the public benefit provided by religious organizations.

religious libertycivil rightstaxes

The case involved Southern Packaging and Storage Company challenging the Department of Labor's application of the Service Contract Act to a Defense Logistics Agency solicitation for assembling M.C.I. field rations, which would require higher nationwide minimum wages rather than the lower local rates the company had paid under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act in prior contracts. After granting a preliminary injunction, the court held a trial on the merits and ruled that the Service Contract Act applies to the procurement but that the statutory term "locality" for determining prevailing wages means the specific county or standard metropolitan statistical area where the bidder's plant is located, not the entire continental United States. The core reasoning rested on the Act's text requiring wages based on locality, legislative history directing a realistic assessment of the contract type and performance area, consistency with past agency practice, and avoidance of results contrary to congressional intent such as nationwide rates that would inflate costs and harm local bidders.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved environmental groups suing federal officials over the construction and operation of dams on the Savannah River, alleging that the dams caused or would cause water pollution by reducing dissolved oxygen and increasing minerals, in violation of the Clean Water Act's permitting requirements under Sections 301 and 402, the EPA Administrator's enforcement duties under Section 309, and NEPA assessment obligations. The defendants moved to dismiss Counts I and II, claiming sovereign immunity barred the suit and that the claims failed to state a valid cause of action. The court denied the motion, ruling that Section 505 of the FWPCA expressly waives sovereign immunity by authorizing citizen suits against the United States and the Administrator for violations of effluent standards or non-discretionary duties. The core reasoning was that the statutory text permits such actions without additional waivers and that the alleged activities fell within the Act's prohibitions on unpermitted pollutant discharges by federal entities.

environmentfederal power