Justia South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Jose Lozada appealed the circuit court's order denying his petition for a declaratory judgment to be removed from the Sex Offender Registry. Defendant argued that the crime to which he pled guilty in Pennsylvania—unlawful restraint—was not a "similar offense" to the crime of kidnapping in South Carolina. He accordingly contended that he should not have been required to register as a sex offender for unlawful restraint pursuant to Section 23-3-430(A) of the South Carolina Code (2010). Upon review of the applicable legal authorities, the Supreme Court found that though "kidnapping" allowed for a greater punishment than "unlawful restraint," that fact did not prove that the offenses were not similar because kidnapping included significantly more culpable behavior. Based on the similarity in public policy behind both the Pennsylvania and South Carolina statutes and the fact that all the conduct proscribed under unlawful restraint was proscribed under the kidnapping statute, the Supreme Court found Defendant was properly required to register as a sex offender in South Carolina. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the circuit court's order. View "Lozada v. So Car. Law Enforcement Div." on Justia Law

Emerson Electric Company and its subsidiaries timely filed consolidated tax returns for South Carolina in fiscal years 1999 through 2002. The periods at issue in this appeal were tax years 1999, 2000, and 2001 (license tax years 2000, 2001, and 2002). In its initial returns, Emerson did not claim deductions for expenses related to its receipt of dividends from subsidiary corporations. Emerson later filed amended returns, claiming the deductions and seeking a refund. Emerson's claimed entitlement to the deductions on its South Carolina returns was the question before the Supreme Court. Emerson argued in the that section 12-6-2220(2), as applied, discriminated against non-resident taxpayers in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the record revealed Emerson availed itself of these same deductions numerous times against its taxable income in various other taxing jurisdictions. The Administrative Law Court properly found Emerson failed to carry its burden of proving that the application of section 12-6-2220 violated the Commerce Clause. The Department of Revenue properly disallowed Emerson's related expense deductions. Emerson's related expense deductions were properly allocated to the state of its principal place of business, Missouri. View "Emerson Electric v. So. Car. Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law

Appellant Karen Cole, on behalf of her husband David, sued the Boy Scouts of America, Indian Waters Council Pack 48 after David was injured during a father-son softball game at a family camping trip. Respondent Jeff Wagner and his son were also on the camping trip and were playing on the opposite team from the Coles in the softball game. Apparently, some of the fathers were playing too aggressively in the minds of some participants and hitting the ball with full swings. One of the Scout leaders briefly interrupted the game and asked them to play more safely, fearing that they were putting the scouts in danger. During Wagner's next turn at bat, he hit a double. Another father came up to bat after him and hit the ball into the outfield, potentially allowing Wagner to score. As Wagner reached home plate, he collided with Cole, who had moved on top of the plate, thereby placing his body directly in the baseline. Wagner was running so fast that he was unable to stop or change directions in time to avoid Cole. Upon impact, Wagner flipped in the air and landed on a bat, breaking a rib. Cole suffered a closed head injury and was rendered semiconscious. He then began bleeding and went into convulsions. Cole had to be airlifted to Palmetto Richland Hospital where he spent two days in the intensive care unit. David Jr. witnessed the entire accident in fear that his father was going to die. Cole and his wife Karen, personally and as guardian ad litem for David Jr. brought this action against Wagner, the Boy Scouts of America, Indian Waters Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Pack 48, and Faith Presbyterian Church for personal injury, loss of consortium, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Wagner moved for summary judgment, contending he owed no duty to Cole because Cole assumed the risks incident to the sport of softball. The circuit court granted Wagner's motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court: "[e]ven assuming that Wagner's conduct could be characterized as reckless, it was not so reckless as to involve risks outside the scope of softball. ... Even within the context of a contact sport, players owe reciprocal duties to not intentionally injure each other. Cole [did] not allege that Wagner's conduct was intentional nor [did] he allege such recklessness as would fall outside the scope of the game of softball. Thus, Wagner's conduct fell within the duty of care he owed to Cole as a coparticipant in the game." View "Cole v. Boy Scouts of America" on Justia Law

Petitioners Beaufort County and several officials from county boards of elections and registration sought a declaration from the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction that the General Assembly has neither authorized the State Election Commission or the County Election Commissions to conduct a Presidential Preference Primary in 2012, nor mandated that Petitioners bear the financial burden of conducting the primary. The South Carolina Republican Party scheduled a Presidential Preference Primary for January 21, 2012. In the 2011-2012 Appropriations Act, the General Assembly provided that filing fees received from candidates to run in primary elections may be used by the State Election Commission to conduct the 2012 Presidential Preference Primary elections. In addition, the State Election Commission is authorized to use funds originally appropriated for ballot security to conduct the Presidential Preference Primary elections and the statewide primaries and runoffs. Petitioners contended the General Assembly did not authorize the State Election Commission or the County Election Commissions to conduct a Presidential Preference Primary in 2012 or any election cycle thereafter. In addition, Petitioners argued the amount set forth in the Appropriations Act were insufficient to cover the actual costs to the counties of conducting the 2012 primary. Because the Court was "firmly persuaded" that the General Assembly, through passage of Provisos 79.6 and 79.12 for fiscal year 2011-2012, intended to suspend the temporal limitation in S.C. Code Ann. 17-11-20(B)(2) (Supp. 2010), the Court entered judgment for Respondents the State Election Commission. View "Beaufort County v. SC Election Commission" on Justia Law

Appellant Alexander Michau appealed a ruling by the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) denying his claim for repetitive trauma injuries to his shoulders. Specifically, Appellant challenged the Commission's interpretation and application of section 42-1-172 of the South Carolina Code. Prior to his injury in 2008, Appellant did not report any work-related problems with his arms to his employer, although he sought outside treatment. The Commission denied Appellant's claim on the grounds that "the greater weight of the medical evidence reflects [Appellant's] upper extremity and shoulder problems are related to pre-existing osteoarthritis and/or rheumatoid arthritis and not caused or aggravated by his employment with Georgetown County." Appellant disputed the admissibility of the Commission's expert doctor's report under South Carolina Code section 42-1-172 because it was not stated "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty." Appellant argued that without this evidence, the remaining competent evidence would support his claim of sustaining a compensable repetitive trauma injury. The Supreme Court concluded after a review of the Commission's record that the doctor was not Appellant's treating doctor, and his employer sought a medical "opinion" to decide the compensability of Appellant's claim. In this instance, the Court concluded that the doctor's testimony was indeed an "opinion" within the meaning of the Code, and therefore inadmissible against Appellant in adjudicating his claim. The Court reversed the Commission's decision to admit the doctor's medical opinion and remanded the case to determine whether the remaining competent evidence supported Appellant's claim of injury. View "Michau v. Georgetown County" on Justia Law

The South Carolina Coastal Conservation League (League) and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) appealed an administrative law judge's (ALJ) order that allowed Respondent Kiawah Development Partners to construct erosion control devices in a critical zone on Captain Sam's Spit (Spit). Respondent owend a peninsula (Spit) which lies primarily south of Kiawah Island, surrounded on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean, Kiawah River and Captain Sam's Inlet which separates the Spit from Seabrook Island. For the past sixty years, the Spit has been "growing," accreting sand on the ocean side at a greater rate than it has been losing ground to erosion on the river side. Respondent leased oceanfront property near the neck to the Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission, which operates Beachwalker Park there. Respondent sought a permit from DHEC to erect a 2,783 foot bulkhead/revetment combination along the Kiawah River, with the structure to begin at the neck, that is, at Beachwalker Park. DHEC authorized construction of the proposed erosion control device for 270 feet, beginning at Beachwalker Park, and denied the remaining portion of the request. Both the League and Respondent requested a contested case hearing before the ALJ, the League to protest the portion of the permit request which was granted, and Respondent to challenge the portion denied. The Appellants contended the ALJ failed to give the deference due DHEC's interpretation of the statutes and regulations, and further that he exceeded his authority in rewriting the permit, resulting in one with terms neither approved by DHEC nor sought by Respondent. Upon review of the ALJ's ruling and the applicable legal standards, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding the ALJ's decision was "affected by numerous errors of law … beginning with the ALJ's misunderstanding of the applicable statutes, regulations, and public policies, and concluding with his erroneous effort to craft a new permit, one which has never been sought by respondent, nor reviewed by OCRM, and which he, in any case, lack[ed] the authority to issue." View "Kiawah Development v. So. Car. Dept. of Health & Environ. Cont." on Justia Law

Petitioner Carolyn Holmes began working for linen company Respondent National Service Industries (National). According to Petitioner, the work environment at the facility was "very hot" and "sticky" with "a lot of lint and dust in the air," and was poorly ventilated. Petitioner was exposed to the fumes of bleach and did not wear a protective mask. In 1992, she began experiencing breathing and sinus problems. Petitioner never experienced breathing or sinus problems prior to working for National. In 1995, Petitioner was diagnosed with sarcoidosis, a respiratory and pulmonary condition. Petitioner testified that her doctor did not know what caused her sarcoidosis and that, in light of this statement, she took no further steps to determine the cause of her condition. In July 2005, Petitioner got a second opinion. Petitioner's second doctor stated in his report that it was unclear whether Petitioner's work exposure at National caused her sarcoidosis, but that it was more likely that her exposure to the airborne particles and fumes worsened her condition, which had previously developed. Based on this, Petitioner filed a workers' compensation claim alleging a compensable injury by accident to her lungs and respiratory system arising out of and in the scope of her employment with National on July 12, 2005, the date she alleges she first discovered her sarcoidosis was related to her employment. A single commissioner found Petitioner sustained a compensable injury. The full commission reversed the commissioner, finding petitioner's claim was barred by a two-year statute of limitations. Specifically, the full commission found petitioner was aware of her working conditions and, with some diligence on her part, could have discovered she had a claim more than two years before her filing date. Petitioner appealed. The circuit court and Court of Appeals affirmed the full commission's determination that petitioner failed to file her claim within the statute of limitations. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial and appellate courts correctly found substantial evidence in the record to support the full commission's findings that Petitioner's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the appellate courts' decisions. View "Holmes v. National Service Industries" on Justia Law

Respondent Deborah Spence alleged that attorney Kenneth Wingate breached a fiduciary duty to her as a former client in its handling of her late husband's life insurance policy. Mr. Spence was a member of United States House of Representatives, and he held a life insurance policy.  Mr. Spence named Mrs. Spence and his four sons from a prior marriage as the beneficiaries of the policy, with all five to receive equal shares of the proceeds. Wingate undertook representation of Mrs. Spence with regards to the assets of her husband, her inheritance rights, and her rights in his estate.  Wingate advised Mrs. Spence that she was entitled to nothing from her husband's estate and that she was barred from receiving an elective share by a prenuptial agreement. Wingate advised Mrs. Spence to enter into an agreement with the four adult sons of Mr. Spence to create a trust to provide her with a lifetime income stream. The trust was to be created and funded from one-third of the value of Mr. Spence's probate estate. Mrs. Spence thereafter came to believe that the amount she received under the agreement negotiated by Wingate was much less than what she was entitled to under the will and its codicil or if she had opted for an elective share. Mrs. Spence thereafter brought a lawsuit to set aside the agreement creating the trust. The agreement was eventually set aside. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Wingate and found that, "[b]y statute, [Wingate] owed no duty or obligation to [Mrs. Spence] in connection with the congressional life insurance policy or the manner in which it was paid." The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment to Wingate and remanded the matter for trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Wingate owed a fiduciary duty to Mrs. Spence: "[t]his duty included, among other obligations, the obligation not to act in a manner adverse to her interests in matters substantially related to the prior representation.  … we uphold the decision of the Court of Appeals to reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand this matter for trial.  To the extent the Court of Appeals indicated whether a duty was owed was a question of fact for the jury, the decision is modified to recognize that whether a fiduciary relationship exists between two classes of persons is a matter to be determined by a court." View "Spence v. Wingate" on Justia Law

In the summer of 1999, Petitioner Gerald Bass was a guest at the Super 8 Motel (Super 8) in Orangeburg while he and several co-workers performed refrigeration work at a local grocery store.  Gopal, Incorporated (Respondent), a franchisee of Super 8, owned and operated the motel. At approximately 10 PM on one evening, Petitioner and his roommate were turning in for the evening when they received a knock at their door. Both men got out of bed, and without looking first to see who was at the door, the roommate opened the door. They saw a man standing a couple of feet from the door. The man then asked Petitioner for his money. When Petitioner refused, the man shot Petitioner in the leg with a small caliber handgun and fled on foot. In September 2002, Petitioner filed a complaint alleging negligence against both Respondent and Super 8. Respondent and Super 8 each filed motions for summary judgment, which were granted.  The court of appeals affirmed, and Petitioner appealed. At issue on appeal was "foreseeability": whether a business owner has a duty to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties. Upon review, the Supreme Court adopted a balancing approach to determine "foreseeability," but found that it was unreasonable for Respondent to have foreseen what happened to Petitioner: "[e]ven with all reasonable inferences from the evidence cast in favor of Petitioner, we find Petitioner did not provide the circuit court any evidence that Respondent's security measures were unreasonable given the risk of criminal activity on the property. " The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent. View "Bass v. Gopal" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant William Dickerson of first degree murder, kidnapping, and criminal sexual conduct, for which he was sentenced to death.  On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued the circuit court erred: (1) in not excusing a juror for cause; (2) in limiting the cross-examination of the pathologist called by the State; (3) in not charging the jury on the law of accessory after the fact; and (4) in limiting the testimony of Dickerson's cousin during the penalty phase of his trial.  Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed and further found that Defendant's sentence was proportional, supported by the evidence, and not the result of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. View "South Carolina v. Dickerson" on Justia Law