The Supreme Court of South Carolina - SC Judicial Department

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2011-UP-170-Charles Maybury v. Christen Maybury (Greenville, Judge Rochelle Y. Conits) 2011-UP-171-Christine Visser v. APEX Builders (Greenville, Judge John C. Few) 2011-UP-172-Christine Visser v. Quality Control Painting (Greenville, Judge John C. Few) 2011-UP-173-Betty Fisher v. Bessie Huckabee (Charleston, Judge Thomas L. Hughston, Jr.) 2011-UP-174-Ralph H. Doering, Jr. v. Perry A. Woodman) (Charleston, Judge Deadra L. Jefferson) 2011-UP-175-Thomas M. Carter v. The Standard Fire Insurance (Williamsburg, Judge Clifton Newman) 2011-UP-176-State v. Grady Ashe (Dorchester, Judge Diane Schafer Goodstein) 2011-UP-177-SCDMV v. Sharon Westfall (Administrative Law Judge John D. McLeod) 2011-UP-178-Donnie Merck v. J.D. Hollingsworth on Wheels (South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission) 2011-UP-179-Larry Goodwin v. James F. Meyer (Charleston, Master-in-Equity Mikell R. Scarborough) 2011-UP-180-Cleveland Sanders v. SCDC (Richland, Judge James R. Barber) 2011-UP-181-Joseph Marshall v. Carrie C. Marshall (Aiken, Judge Dale Moore Gable) 2011-UP-182-John Glenn v. SCDC (Administrative Law Court Judge John D. McLeod) 2011-UP-183-State v. Frederick J. Jenkins (Spartanburg, Judge E. C. Burnett, III) 6
PETITIONS FOR REHEARING 4705-Hudson v. Lancaster Convalescent Denied 4/21/11 4764-Walterboro Community Hosp. v. Meacher 4773-Consignment Sales v. Tucker Oil Pending Pending 4789-Harris v. USC Denied 4/21/11 4790-Holly Woods Assoc. v. Hiller Denied 4/21/11 4792-Curtis v. Blake 4794-Beaufort Cty. Schl. v. United Pending Pending 4795-Richland Horizontal v. Sky Green Denied 4/21/11 4798-State v. J. Orozco Denied 4/21/11 4799-Trask v. Beaufort County Pending 4800-State v. T. Wallace Denied 4/21/11 4802-Bean v. SC Central Pending 4804-State v. I. Warren Denied 4/21/11 4805-Limehouse v. Hulsey Pending 4806-Kase v. Michael Ebert Denied 4/21/11 4808-Biggins v. Burdette Denied 4/21/11 4810-Menezes v. WL Ross & Co. 4811-Prince v. Beaufort Memorial Hospital 4818-State v. Randolph Frazier 2011-UP-007-Barrett v. Flowers Pending Pending Pending Pending 7
Page 1 and 2: The Supreme Court of South Carolina
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH
Page 5: The South Carolina Court of Appeals
Page 9 and 10: PETITIONS-SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME CO
Page 11 and 12: 4711-Jennings v. Jennings Pending 4
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?