Supreme Court of South Carolina

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 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 court held that appeals from family court matters must be reviewed de novo, not under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Because the court of appeals repeatedly applied the wrong standard in reversing and remanding on multiple issues, the court reversed and remanded for reconsideration under de novo review.

The court held that the rule requiring individualized consideration before imposing life without parole on a juvenile applies retroactively and extends to discretionary as well as mandatory life-without-parole sentences.

The court declined to reconsider its prior arbitration decision under intervening federal precedent because the appellant had not preserved the federal-preemption issue in the South Carolina proceedings.

The court held that the prior criminal-contempt conviction did not bar Brandt’s subsequent forgery prosecution because the offenses required proof of different elements. It also held that the evidence sufficiently supported submitting forgery to the jury and that the jury instructions and denial of a new trial were…

The court held that the family court retained subject matter jurisdiction to reconsider a divorce settlement agreement after a material provision was declared void. Because the voided Social Security-benefit provision was an important part of the parties’ overall compromise and was interconnected with property…

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review two aspects of the court of appeals' unpublished decision in this divorce action: its reversal of the family court's $800,000 valuation of the marital home and its modification of the family court's award of $23,066.25 in expert witness fees to the wife.

The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s summary‑judgment grant on the negligent‑misrepresentation claim because the petitioners presented at least a scintilla of evidence that the insurance was an individual policy, not a group policy.

The court affirmed Mattison’s convictions, while modifying the lower appellate court’s characterization of the omitted prior-knowledge instruction as merely implicit. Although the jury instructions were confusing and omitted express instructions on mere association and mere knowledge, the charge as a whole adequately…

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that trial courts must exercise gatekeeping under Rule 702 for both scientific and nonscientific expert testimony, and that the trial court properly admitted the dog‑tracking evidence in White’s case.

The court reversed the court of appeals’ affirmance of summary judgment for Mid-South in Hancock’s premises-liability action. It held that, under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, a nonmoving party need submit only a scintilla of evidence to survive summary judgment, and that the evidence created genuine…

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the master‑in‑equity’s denial of specific performance, holding that the contracts contained a condition precedent requiring all owners to sign before closing, that the condition was enforceable, that substantial compliance was insufficient, and that extrinsic testimony was…

The court affirmed partial summary judgment for North Charleston, holding that Summerville failed to provide the statutorily required thirty days' notice before enacting its annexation ordinance.

The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the post‑conviction relief court’s finding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an identification instruction, holding that identification was not an integral issue and that the trial court’s credibility instruction was sufficient.

The court affirmed dismissal of the minor’s claims against the psychiatrist and her professional association. It held that the child-abuse reporting statute does not create a private cause of action for negligence per se, and that common-law liability for failing to warn requires a specific threat directed at an…

The court affirmed the condemnation judgment, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion by using a special verdict form. It also held that SCDOT timely preserved its objection to the form, but that the form was not misleading or prejudicial because the jury instructions fully explained both permissible…

The court reversed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that both Babcock Center and the Department owed Madison a common-law duty to exercise reasonable care in supervising and caring for her.

The court affirmed summary judgment for attorney Hill and a directed verdict for the Foxes on the Pyes' civil-conspiracy claims. The Pyes' independent-duty theory against Hill was unpreserved because it was raised for the first time on appeal, while their scope-of-representation theory was preserved but failed for…

The court held that testimony about Petitioner's later failure to stop for a blue light and his explanation that he was accused of murder was inadmissible as flight evidence, corroboration, or identity evidence under Rule 404(b).

The court held that testimony about Respondent's casual inquiry concerning life insurance on the victim was inadmissible because it had slight probative value and created unfair prejudice.

The court held that Erickson, a private guardian ad litem, was a private-figure plaintiff rather than a public official or limited-purpose public figure, and therefore reversed the directed verdict on her defamation claim.

The court affirmed summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claims because the criminal proceedings were not shown to have terminated favorably, probable cause existed, and malice was not established.

The court held that a nonrelative custodian with a real, material, or substantial interest in a child's long-term custody and potential adoption has standing to participate in a family court proceeding.

The court affirmed Freiburger’s murder conviction and life sentence. It held that the Tennessee officer’s pat-down and seizure of the revolver were lawful as incident to an impending arrest, and that the remaining evidentiary and trial-error claims were either unpreserved, unsupported by the record, or nonprejudicial.

The court held that an indictment's alleged omission of an offense element concerns indictment sufficiency, not subject matter jurisdiction, and must be challenged before the jury is sworn.

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict for Gibson‑Wall Company, holding that the trial court correctly denied Helms Realty’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, properly refused to review the jury charge because the record was insufficient, and correctly granted summary judgment on…

The court held that the appeal was timely because the plaintiff's written post-trial motion was properly treated as an initial motion for reconsideration that tolled the appeal period.

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to submit the charge of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute to the jury because the quantity and packaging of the drugs, cash denominations, absence of paraphernalia, and location supported an inference of intent to distribute.

The court held SCDOT's first written Rule 59(e) motion properly tolled the time for appeal even though it repeated issues raised in earlier oral post-trial motions, so the appeal was timely.

The court upheld the convictions and sentences of Eric Devon Queen, rejecting challenges concerning joinder, jury selection, jury randomness, jury excusal, jury instructions, conspiracy multiplicity, double jeopardy, discovery, and capital sentencing.

The court affirmed the family court’s judgment as modified, upholding the refusal to recuse, custody of the two younger children to Wife, permanent periodic alimony of $1,500 per month, and monthly child support of $1,150.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina granted the State's petition for certiorari, denied Dunbar's cross-petition, and held that the Court of Appeals erred when it reversed the trial court's admission of drug evidence by deciding the search-warrant issue under S.C. Code Ann.

The court affirmed, as modified, the termination of the mother's parental rights based on her willful failure to visit and support her child and the child's best interests. It held that the record contained clear and convincing evidence that the mother's prolonged lack of contact and support reflected a settled…