Supreme Court of South Carolina

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the lower court, holding that the plaintiffs' lawsuit challenging Oconee County's bond ordinance is barred by the twenty‑day statute of limitations in S.C.

The court accepted Respondent's Agreement for Discipline by Consent and publicly reprimanded her for failing to issue a title insurance policy, failing to respond to the client's inquiries, and failing to return the funds received for the transaction.

The South Carolina Supreme Court answered two certified questions, holding that publicly available or nonconfidential information does not constitute "identifying information" under § 24-3-580(A)(2) and that a person cannot "knowingly disclose" such information under § 24-3-580(C).

The court accepted the parties' Agreement for Discipline by Consent after Respondent admitted misconduct in three matters involving inadequate supervision and fee-sharing, failure to appear and communicate in a court proceeding, and multiple errors in an adoption case.

The court accepted Respondent's Agreement for Discipline by Consent after he admitted misconduct involving diligence, competence, communication, and delivery of trust funds. The court determined that the misconduct warranted a public reprimand and imposed costs, an assessment and compliance obligations, and completion…

The court accepted the parties' Agreement for Discipline by Consent after Respondent admitted misconduct involving fraud-related dishonesty, misrepresentations, and failure to report her felony indictment.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina accepted Respondent's Agreement for Discipline by Consent after his failure to answer formal charges resulted in the allegations being deemed admitted and a default order being entered.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the family court's order, holding that the statutory preponderance of the evidence burden of proof is constitutional and that the family court's findings of sexual abuse were supported by that burden.

The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request the additional circumstantial-evidence language associated with Logan.

The court held that an order granting or denying class certification is never immediately appealable to the court of appeals, although this court may intervene by common-law writ of certiorari in rare and exceptional circumstances.

The court held that corporations serving as personal representatives, guardians, conservators, or attorneys in fact in probate matters are not conducting a regulated "trust business" under the statute.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the circuit court's order upholding Beaufort County's ordinance imposing a law‑enforcement service charge and user fee on Hilton Head residents. The Court held that the ordinance satisfies the statutory requirements of S.C. Code Ann.

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's Confirmation Order, modifying its scope and reversing the portion that questioned CIHL's solvency, while rejecting challenges that English law and the Adams decision preclude the receiver's actions or personal jurisdiction.

The South Carolina Supreme Court imposed a public reprimand on Respondent as reciprocal discipline for a North Carolina censure, finding no justification under Rule 29(d) to impose a lesser sanction.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina accepted a disciplinary agreement and imposed a thirty‑day definite suspension on attorney Daniel Carson Boles for disruptive and disrespectful conduct toward a magistrate, finding violations of Rules 3.5(d), 8.4(e) and the Lawyer’s Oath.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the disciplinary panel’s recommendation and disbarred Christopher W. Burrows. The Court held that his repeated failure to respond to investigative notices, formal charges, and to appear for a required interview constituted an admission of the alleged misconduct and…

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the post‑conviction relief court’s determination that Bayan Aleksey is not intellectually disabled and therefore remains subject to the death penalty, and it upheld the court’s exclusion of the Hammock affidavit as a proper exercise of discretion.

The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the trial court correctly refused to give the jury a lesser‑included offense instruction for Third‑Degree Assault and Battery.

The court accepted the respondent’s disciplinary agreement and imposed a six-month definite suspension, retroactive to the date of her interim suspension. It concluded that her admitted conduct, which violated the professional-conduct rule against criminal acts reflecting adversely on a lawyer’s fitness, warranted…

The South Carolina Supreme Court accepted the respondent’s consent agreement after he admitted professional misconduct in two client matters. The Court imposed a public reprimand and ordered him to pay the investigation and prosecution costs within thirty days.

The Court considered whether the policy’s Medpay provision required Progressive to pay Jones the full $10,000 coverage limit under the phrase “expenses incurred.” It reversed the Court of Appeals’ interpretation requiring payment of the full limit, but the supplied opinion text does not include the Court’s explanation…

The South Carolina Supreme Court held that Garvin did not knowingly and voluntarily waive her right to counsel at her probation revocation hearing, and therefore reversed the lower courts' revocation and remanded for a new hearing.

The South Carolina Supreme Court accepted a disciplinary agreement and imposed a public reprimand on former Master-in-Equity Curtis G. Clark, finding it the most severe sanction permissible because he no longer holds judicial office.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina accepted a disciplinary agreement with former magistrate James E. Crook and imposed a public reprimand. The Court held that a public reprimand is the most severe sanction available when the respondent no longer holds judicial office.

The South Carolina Supreme Court accepted the parties' agreement for discipline and imposed a nine‑month definite suspension on attorney David F. Stoddard. The Court found his conduct across five separate matters—ranging from missed mediations to failure to file required affidavits and inadequate client…

The South Carolina Supreme Court accepted a disciplinary agreement and imposed a definite thirty‑day suspension on Judge Darrell Scott Fisher for ex parte communications and bias, finding his conduct violated multiple canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that Amazon Services was "engaged . . . in the business of selling" under §12‑36‑910(A) and therefore required to collect and remit sales tax on third‑party merchant transactions, and that the Department’s assessment did not violate due process.

The South Carolina Supreme Court accepted the parties' agreement and imposed a six‑month definite suspension on attorney Tasha Jean Kotz for multiple instances of dishonest conduct, improper communications, and filing a fraudulent affidavit, citing the seriousness of the misconduct and mitigating factors.

The South Carolina Supreme Court accepted the attorney’s consent agreement and imposed a public reprimand, ordering payment of costs and specific remedial conditions for billing and record‑keeping violations.

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s summary judgment upholding the Eye Care Consumer Protection Law, finding it constitutional under the state’s equal protection and substantive due process clauses.

The South Carolina Supreme Court held that both the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the City of Charleston have standing to challenge North Charleston's annexation ordinance and affirmed the lower court's ruling that the annexation was invalid because the parcel is not "adjacent" to the city’s existing…

The Supreme Court of South Carolina interpreted §15-36-100 of the Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act, holding that an expert affidavit need not be from the same profession as the defendant if the expert qualifies under subsection (A)(3).

The South Carolina Supreme Court held that the South Carolina Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities (SCUSRAP) was enacted to abolish the common law rule against perpetuities (CLRAP) and replace it, so the perpetual option at issue is not void under either rule.

The South Carolina Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that the defendant had been told he failed a polygraph, but found the error harmless and therefore affirmed the murder conviction. The court distinguished State v.

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the post‑conviction relief (PCR) court’s denial of Marion Alexander Lindsey’s petition, holding that the PCR court properly adopted the State’s proposed order after giving the parties opportunity to respond and that Lindsey’s trial counsel did not provide constitutionally…

The South Carolina Supreme Court held that the road‑maintenance fees at issue are not taxes under the Revenue Procedures Act, so the trial court retained subject‑matter jurisdiction and erred in dismissing the class‑action claim; it also held that the Act’s catch‑all provision does not bar class actions absent a…

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court, holding that Georgetown County Council's ordinance permitting a new restaurant in the Marlin Quay Planned Development did not violate Gulfstream Café's substantive due process rights, did not constitute a regulatory taking or inverse condemnation, was not…

The court accepted Respondent’s agreement admitting misconduct in four client matters and imposed a nine-month definite suspension. It found the admitted neglect, communication failures, failure to return client funds, and noncooperation with disciplinary authorities warranted that sanction.

The court held that the League’s partisan-gerrymandering claim presents a nonjusticiable political question. The supplied syllabus states that the League’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, but the opinion text provided here is truncated before the court’s reasoning and disposition.

The Court accepted the respondent’s agreement for discipline by consent and suspended her from practicing law for six months. It relied on her neglect of seven clients, resulting prejudice to several clients, failures to respond to disciplinary investigations, and unpaid restitution, notwithstanding health concerns…