November 10, 2011
November 08, 2011
Welcome to the South Carolina Bar's E-Blast!
November 10, 2011
E-Blast highlights upcoming activities, legal information and links to the Bar's website at www.scbar.org.
The South Carolina Bar is dedicated to advancing justice, professionalism and understanding of the law.
Thank you from the LRE Division
The Law Related Education (LRE) Division thanks the attorney coaches, presiding judges, scoring judges, regional coordinators and other attorney volunteers that made the 2011 Middle School Mock Trial Regional Competitions a success. The complete list of volunteers can be found here. The LRE Division also thanks the Marc H. Westbrook Lexington County Judicial Center, Greenville County Courthouse and Conway Courthouse for providing the facilities that made the competitions possible.
Have you registered with AIS?
The Supreme Court issued an order requiring all South Carolina lawyers to log on to the new SCJD Attorney Information System (AIS) to validate their contact information by November 18, 2011. To date, 8,277 attorneys have validated their information. Attorney contact information from AIS will be used by the South Carolina trial courts, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court to send attorney notices and court correspondence. Each attorney has a unique account that is password protected and was mailed a personalized letter from Chief Justice Toal dated October 17, 2011, that contains the specific logon procedures. Please note that attorneys will be unable to renew their 2012 South Carolina Bar license without first validating their contact information in AIS at the Supreme Court.
To view the complete order, click here. All changes in contact information, including name, organization, address, phone number and e-mail will be handled by AIS exclusively. AIS is the first step to electronic filing of court documents in South Carolina. The Bar will continue to collect and maintain Rule 608 court appointment information, including list designations and county for appointment.
YLD New Admittee Receptions
The S.C. Bar YLD, Richland County Bar Association Young Lawyers Division and Greenville Young Lawyers Club are hosting New Admittee Receptions in Columbia and Greenville to welcome newly admitted young lawyers to the practice of law. Columbia’s reception will be held on Wednesday, Nov. 16, from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. at The Big Ugly (931 Unit A Senate St.), and Greenville’s reception will be held on Wednesday, Nov. 30, from 5:30 to 8 p.m. at High Cotton, Falls Park Room (550 S. Main St.). Please RSVP to Kayla Brazell at firstname.lastname@example.org (Columbia) or Lynsey Kmetz at email@example.com (Greenville).
Advance Sheet update
November 10, 2011
In this workers’ compensation case, the S.C. Court of Appeals found that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Appellate Panel's finding that the worsening of the appellant’s condition was not unexpected. The Appellate Panel and the circuit court looked to whether the appellant’s injury and the worsening of her condition was an expected result of her work activities. The appellant acknowledged in her testimony that doctors had informed her that standing for a prolonged time would cause her condition to worsen. Therefore, the appellant did not suffer an injury by accident arising out of, or in the course of, her employment.
Landry v. Carolina Healthcare Sys., No. 4905, is available online.
The family court had subject matter jurisdiction in this divorce proceeding because the parties moved to South Carolina with the intent of making it their permanent residence. The family court had no obligation to appoint the wife an attorney in a divorce proceeding where she chose to represent herself at the outset, and therefore, there was no error in the family court's decision to continue with the trial after the wife requested a court-appointed attorney. Since the record lacked any indication the family court considered whether the wife should be allowed to raise the issue of alimony despite her failure to answer, the court concluded the family court erred in failing to exercise its discretion. The family court properly exempted this case from mandatory mediation since the wife was in default and her whereabouts were unknown.
Roesler v. Roesler, No. 4906, is available online.
In this zoning case, the appellants filed their petition outlining the grounds for their appeal within the 30-day filing period, and the respondent did not contend that this petition failed to identify the grounds for appeal. Therefore, the appeal was properly before the master. Because the general land use table in Section 106-1098 did not include the standards for Community Preservation districts, the master correctly reasoned that Section 106-1362 does not apply to Community Preservation districts. The appellants’ concerns were speculative, and in view of the facts, the master did not err in finding Section 106-552 did not require the respondent to order a Community Impact Statement. The master's statement that the Board "only needed to consider the criteria for approval of a special use permit under [Section] 106-552" was incongruous with his finding concerning Appendix D. Accordingly, the court affirmed the master's decision to the extent he found the Board needed to consider the criteria for approval of a special use permit under Section 106-552 and not the provisions of Article V, Division 2.
Newton v. Beaufort Cnty. Zoning Bd., No. 4907, is available online.
In this workers’ compensation case, the court affirmed the determination that the appellant did not suffer a compensable work-related injury. The appellant was unable to establish that her asthma, or the chemicals causing her asthma, were specific to her occupation or that her asthma was a direct result of her exposure to normal working conditions at her workplace. The appellant’s expert witness’ opinion was not conclusive, particularly when the single commissioner found the appellant was not credible and evaded questions regarding prior respiratory issues and corresponding treatment throughout her testimony.
Brunson v. American Koyo Bearing, No. 4908, is available online.
In this cross-appeal, the court found the evidence presented a question of fact as to whether a contract existed between the parties, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying NARP's directed verdict motions. The law recognized that despite having been a "winning" party below, a party could still be aggrieved by a judgment of the court. Thus, the court found Richardson was an aggrieved party in a legal sense and therefore had standing to appeal. Since Richardson made a post-trial motion that was raised and ruled upon by the circuit court, the issue was properly preserved and raised on appeal. The court found ample evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict, and Richardson did not present, nor did the court find, any compelling reasons to invade the jury's province and alter the amount in the verdict. Thus, the court affirmed the circuit court's entry of specific performance.
N. Am. Rescue Prods. v. Richardson, No. 4909, is available online.
In this default negligence action, the court applied the Wham factors and found no error in the trial judge’s finding that the appellant did not show cause sufficient to relieve the entry of default. Additionally, there was no error in admitting the respondent’s own testimony of her injuries and the medical bills. The trial court is granted wide latitude in the review of an award of damages, and although sparse, the respondent presented some evidence of permanent injury and entitlement to damages for future pain and suffering by testifying she continued to experience pain nearly three years after the accident.
Wilder v. Blue Ribbon Taxicab Corp., No. 4910, is available online.
The Hunter Law Firm announces its relocation to 455 Seven Farms Dr., Ste. 107, Charleston 29492. (843) 579-1017.
The Mike Kelly Law Group announces that Richard H. Wallace Jr. has joined the firm as of counsel located at 500 Taylor St., Columbia 29202. (803) 726-0123.
Turner Padget Graham & Laney, PA announces that Andrew W. Kunz has joined the firm as an associate located at 1901 Main St., 17th Floor, Columbia 29201. (803) 254-2200.
Practice and Procedure Committee Meeting, Conference Center
Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee Meeting, Conference Center
Board of Governors Meeting, Bar Building
Family Law Section Council Meeting, Conference Call
S.C. Bar Foundation Board Meeting, Bar Building
Elder Law Committee Meeting, Bar Building
Ethics Advisory Committee Meeting, Nelson Mullins (Columbia)
Probate, Estate Planning and Trust Section Council Meeting, Conference Call
Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission Meeting, Conference Center
Community Association Law Committee Meeting, Bar Building
Dispute Resolution Section Council Meeting, Conference Call
Professional Responsibility Committee Meeting, Bar Building
To be added or deleted from the E-Blast mailing list, please contact Donna Oelhafen in Membership Services at firstname.lastname@example.org or (803) 799-6653, ext. 171.