The Supreme Court of South Carolina - SC Judicial Department

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4637-Shirley’s Iron Works v. City of Union Pending 4641-State v. F. Evans Pending 4654-Sierra Club v. SCDHEC 4659-Nationwide Mut. V. Rhoden 4661-SCDOR v. Blue Moon 4670-SCDC v. B. Cartrette 4673-Bailey, James v. SCDPPPS 4675-Middleton v. Eubank 4680-State v. L. Garner Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending 4682-Farmer v. Farmer Pending 4687-State v. D. Syllester 4688-State v. Carmack 4691-State v. C. Brown 4692-In the matter of Manigo 4697-State v. D. Cortez 4698-State v. M. Baker 4699-Manios v. Nelson Mullins 4700-Wallace v. Day 4702-Peterson v. Porter 4706-Pitts v. Fink 4708-State v. Webb Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending 10
4711-Jennings v. Jennings Pending 4714-State v. P. Strickland 4716-Johnson v. Horry County 4721-Rutland (Est. of Rutland) v. SCDOT 4725-Ashenfelder v. City of Georgetown 4728-State v. Lattimore 4732-Fletcher v. MUSC 4737-Hutson v. SC Ports Authority 4738-SC Farm Bureau v. Kennedy 4742-State v. Theodore Wills 4746-Crisp v. SouthCo 4747-State v. A. Gibson 4752-Farmer v. Florence Cty. 4753-Ware v. Ware 4755-Williams v. Smalls 4756-Neeltec Enterprises v. Long 4761-Coake v. Burt Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending 4763-Jenkins v. Few Pending 4770-Pridgen v. Ward 4779-AJG Holdings v. Dunn 4781-Banks v. St. Matthews Baptist Church 2009-UP-266-State v. McKenzie Pending Pending Pending Pending 11
Page 1 and 2: The Supreme Court of South Carolina
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH
Page 5 and 6: The South Carolina Court of Appeals
Page 7 and 8: PETITIONS FOR REHEARING 4705-Hudson
Page 9: PETITIONS-SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME CO
Page 13 and 14: 2010-UP-303-State v. N. Patrick 201
Page 15 and 16: THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The
Page 17 and 18: determination by the Department as
Page 19 and 20: 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-15 § 1
Page 21 and 22: space to physician's practices and
Page 23 and 24: In sum, DHEC's policy shift concern
Page 25 and 26: using Beaver's appraisal was "contr
Page 27 and 28: suspension. 1 We accept the agreeme
Page 29 and 30: THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The
Page 31 and 32: educated and financially successful
Page 33 and 34: civility, not only in court, but al
Page 35 and 36: he runs afoul of the penalties of l
Page 39 and 40: (B) shall execute and file with the
Page 45 and 46: Columbia, South Carolina April 21,
Page 47 and 48: E. Ros Huff, Jr., of Irmo, for Appe
Page 49 and 50: aised the issue on behalf of Matthe
Page 51 and 52: II. Beneficiaries/Next of Kin Depen
Page 53 and 54: insolvent insurer and (a) the claim
Page 55 and 56: Judge Goode found, the imposition o
Page 57 and 58: John T. Crawford, Jr., and Keven Ke
Page 59 and 60: STANDARD OF REVIEW In an action at
Page 61 and 62:
any other person having a current o
Page 63 and 64:
Accordingly, Appellants maintain th
Page 65 and 66:
Specifically, Appellants argue the
Page 67 and 68:
only be granted when absolutely nec
Page 69 and 70:
abandoned issue when he failed to p
Page 71 and 72:
the jury. Furthermore, the amount a
Page 73 and 74:
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The
Page 75 and 76:
Poovey approached the scene, he obs
Page 77 and 78:
easonable suspicion to stop Frazier
Page 79 and 80:
urglary and the show-up, Sanders's
Page 81 and 82:
where an incident is so grievous th
Page 83 and 84:
Andrew F. Lindemann and J. Edward B
Page 85 and 86:
In any action . . . to recover dama
Page 87 and 88:
epose because the basis for a contr
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
force trauma to the chest in connec
Page 93 and 94:
ISSUES ON APPEAL (1) Did the circu
Page 95 and 96:
to be a narcotic drug, one case fro
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Medicaid Services. 3 The South Caro
Page 101 and 102:
Peter appealed to the ALC. The ALC
Page 103 and 104:
necessitate a waiver-qualifying ind
Page 105 and 106:
of Columbia; Solicitor Edgar Lewis
Page 107 and 108:
transfer request." State v. Pittman
Page 109 and 110:
In this case, we find the family co
Page 111 and 112:
CONCLUSION We find the family court
Page 113 and 114:
FEW, C.J.: In Lawrence Burgess's ap
Page 115 and 116:
[T]he parties . . . consent and agr
Page 117 and 118:
municipality or a town from authori
Page 119 and 120:
court need not address remaining is
Page 121 and 122:
Burgess's counsel objected to the c
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
of 33%." Dr. Lehman also found Laws
Page 127 and 128:
the decision is affected by an erro
Page 129 and 130:
Reg. 67-707(C). known to the moving
show all

The Supreme Court of South Carolina - SC Judicial Department

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?