The Supreme Court of South Carolina - SC Judicial Department

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2011-UP-039-Chevrolet v. Azalea Motors Denied 4/21/11 2011-UP-059-State v. R. Campbell Denied 4/21/11 2011-UP-061-Mountain View Baptist Church Pending 2011-UP-076-Johnson v. Town of Iva Denied 4/21/11 2011-UP-080-State v. S. Harmon Denied 4/21/11 2011-UP-084-Greenwood Beach v. Charleston Denied 4/21/11 2011-UP-091-State v. R. Watkins Denied 4/21/11 2011-UP-095-State v. E. Gamble Denied 4/21/11 2011-UP-100-Howard v. Cartee Denied 4/21/11 2011-UP-108-Dippel v. Horry County 2011-UP-109-Dippel v. Fowler Pending Pending 2011-UP-110-Jackson v. Jackson Denied 4/21/11 2011-UP-112-Myles v. Main-Waters Denied 4/21/11 2011-UP-115-State v. B. Johnson Denied 4/21/11 2011-UP-117-State v. E. Morrow Pending 2011-UP-121-In the matter of T. Simmons 2011-UP-125-Groce v. Horry County 2011-UP-127-State v. B. Butler 2011-UP-129-NBSC v. Ship Ahoy 2011-UP-130-SCDMV v. P. Brown Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending 2011-UP-131-Burton v. Hardaway Pending 8
PETITIONS-SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 4367-State v. J. Page 4474-Stringer v. State Farm 4510-State v. Hoss Hicks 4526-State v. B. Cope 4529-State v. J. Tapp 4548-Jones v. Enterprise 4588-Springs and Davenport v. AAG Inc. 4592-Weston v. Kim’s Dollar Store 4597-Lexington County Health v. SCDOR 4599-Fredrick v. Wellman 4605-Auto-Owners v. Rhodes 4609-State v. Holland 4610-Milliken & Company v. Morin 4614-US Bank v. Bell 4616-Too Tacky v. SCDHEC 4617-Poch v. Bayshore 4619-State v. Blackwill-Selim 4631-Stringer v. State Farm 4633-State v. G. Cooper 4635-State v. C. Liverman Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending 9
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: PETITIONS FOR REHEARING 4705-Hudson
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?