Cases from July 2012 to Oct. 2012
Federal Arbitration Act
To bring an agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act, the transaction must involve interstate commerce.
Bradley v. Brentwood Homes, No. 27143 (S.C. Sup. Ct., July 11, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 23)
Part-time prosecutors are not exempt from following the filing requirements under S.C. Code Ann. Section 8-13-1356(B).
Temple v. S.C. State Election Commission, No. 27172 (S.C. Sup. Ct., Sept. 26, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 34)
Stored Communications Act
Retaining a single copy of an opened e-mail does not constitute as storing the e-mail for backup protection under the federal Stored Communications Act.
Jennings v. Jennings, No. 27177 (S.C. Sup. Ct., Oct. 10, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 36)
The S.C. Legislature intended the consent provision in the Wiretap Act to encompass the vicarious consent of a parent on behalf of a minor child.
State v. Whitner, No. 27142 (S.C. Sup. Ct., July 11, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 23)
Cases from May 2012 and June 2012
S.C. Code Sections 8-13-1356(B) and (E) require an individual to file a Statement of Economic Interest (SEI) at the same time and with the same official with whom a Statement of Intention of Candidacy (SIC) is filed, and prohibit political party officials from accepting an SIC which is not accompanied by an SEI.
Anderson v. South Carolina Election Commission, No. 27120 (S.C. Sup. Ct., May 2, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 15)
S.C. Code Ann. Section 8-13-1356(A) does not exempt candidates from the filing requirements of Section 8-13-1356(B). Construing the statute in such a way would render it meaningless.
Florence Cnty. Democratic Party v. Florence Cnty. Republican Party, No. 27128 (S.C. Sup. Ct. June 5, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 19)
Freedom of Information Act
Amendment of a county council’s agenda during regularly scheduled meetings violates the Freedom of Information Act.
Lambries v. Saluda Cnty. Council, No. 4989 (S.C. Ct. App. June 13, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 20)
Cases from Feb. 2012 to May 2012
Bona fide guest
The term “bona fide guest” in S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-401.4 shall be interpreted based upon the plain meaning of the Regulation to mean someone who is “either personally accompanied onto the premises by a member or a member has made a prior arrangement with management for him.” No other requirements to be a bona fide guest within the Regulation exist.
SCDOR v. Blue Moon, No. 27106 (S.C. Sup. Ct., Apr. 4, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 12)
S.C. Statute Section 38-73-910(A) requires publication of an increase in workers’ compensation loss cost rates, regardless of whether there is an overall increase in rates or if only specific rates have increased.
Consumer Advocate v. Department of Insurance, No. 4944 (S.C. Ct. App., Feb. 22, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 7)
Cases from Jan. 2012 to March 2012
Affidavit of a medical expert
An affidavit of an expert witness must be filed at the same time as a Notice of Intent to File Suit, per S.C. Code Section 15-79-125. If not, the case may be dismissed.
Ranucci v. Cain, No. 4935 (S.C. Ct. App., Jan. 25, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 3)
The legislature has set forth no specified number of jurors required to be present and available in the jury pool before jury selection can proceed.
State v. Johnson, No. 4927 (S.C. Ct. App., Jan. 4, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 1)
A grievance between an employee and employer over the employer’s retirement system does not require resolution by the administrative process outlined in the Retirement Act, as that act is only meant to apply to grievances between the retirement systems and their respective members.
Grimsley v. SLED, No. 27085 (S.C. Sup. Ct., Jan. 3, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 1)
Cases from Oct. 2011 to Jan. 2012
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. Section 17-11-20(B)(2) (Supp. 2010) and to authorize the State Election Commission and the County Election Commissions to conduct Presidential Preference Primaries in 2012.
Beaufort Cnty. v. S.C. Election Comm’n, No. 27069 (S.C. Sup. Ct., Nov. 22, 2011) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 42).
S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-6-2220 does not discriminate against interstate commerce and thus does not violate the Commerce Clause. Further, Section 12-6-2220(2) dictates that certain expense deductions must be allocated to a company’s principal place of business.
Emerson Elec. v. S.C. Dep’t of Revenue, No. 27073 (S.C. Sup. Ct., Dec. 12, 2011) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 44).
The City of Columbia Zoning Ordinance, which limits the number of unrelated persons who may reside together as a single housekeeping unit to three, does not violate the Due Process Clause of the S.C. Constitution as it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
McMaster v. Columbia Bd. of Zoning, No. 27075 (S.C. Sup. Ct., Dec. 12, 2011) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 44).