Source: https://www.masc.sc/resources/research-tools/court-opinions
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:46:29+00:00

Document:
​The page provides links to summaries of South Carolina court opinions and orders containing relevant developments in case law. Summaries can be sorted by date or filtered by category.
The information is not legal advice nor should it be relied upon as legal advice. The Association makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information. Because case law and statutes may change rapidly, the information may not be up to date. Also, different jurisdiction may interpret the law differently than in these summaries. Do not use the information as a substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel. The Association is not liable or responsible for any claim, loss, injury, liability or damages resulting from the use of the information.
​Petitioners, who had been cited by the City of Myrtle Beach for violating a motorcycle helmet ordinance, sought a judgment declaring (1) that state law preempted the helmet ordinance, and (2) that a later ordinance repealing the administrative hearing system for motorcycle ordinance infractions caused the motorcycle ordinances to fail. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the helmet ordinance failed under implied field preemption and that it was impliedly repealed by the ordinance repealing the hearing system.
Where Appellants (non-resident property owners) alleged Town had a duty to provide water/sewer service to their property, the Court of Appeals affirmed that Town’s status as designated management agency under the Clean Water Act did not create a duty to provide sewer service. Town’s ordinances also did not create a duty to provide water/sewer service to non-residents. Appellants sufficiently alleged facts showing that Town had a duty to provide services based on an easement. Appellants also sufficiently alleged claims for breach of contract, equal protection, estoppel, mandamus, injunction and declaratory relief.
​​The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed a determination that the City’s public nuisance ordinance, which brought one of Norfolk’s bridges within the definition of a public nuisance, was preempted by federal law governing the operation and maintenance of railroad bridges.
Where a town annexed property pursuant to the 100 percent method, private parties that did not own property in the annexed area lacked standing to challenge the annexation. Because the State presumptively owned the marshland in the annexed area, it had standing to challenge the annexation. Its signature was required under the 100 percent method. Because the statute of limitations applicable to annexation challenges had expired before the State sought to intervene, the State’s challenges were properly denied.
​​The Supreme Court denied relief to working retirees who sought relief after the legislature amended the working retirees statute to require the retirees to make retirement contributions without receiving additional service credit. The Court determined that no binding contract existed between the working retirees and the State, and that the State was not estopped from collecting contributions from the working retirees.
​Two individuals on the same motorcycle were seriously injured in an auto accident when a traffic light malfunctioned in Inman. The at-fault party had minimal limits of insurance ($50,000), and the couple sued both the Department of Transportation and the Department of Public Safety for failure to prevent the accident. They alleged that DOT did not have a preventive maintenance program in place to routinely change the light bulbs in the traffic lights, and alleged DPS had not sent an officer to direct traffic at the light one hour and 27 minutes after a confirmed citizen’s call was made to DPS informing them of the malfunction. The original award for the injured couple was $1,875,000, which was reduced to the statutory maximum of $600,000 by the lower courts set forth in S.C. Code Ann. §15-78-120. In this decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state tort caps but redefined an “occurrence” so as to provide additional relief to the plaintiffs.
​This appeal is the culmination of the Town of James Island’s third attempt to incorporate into its own municipal body. The two previous attempts were invalidated by the Supreme Court in Glaze v. Grooms, 324 S.C. 249, 478 S.E.2d 841 (1996) and Kizer v. Clark, 360 S.C. 86, 600 S.E.2d 529 (2004).
​In Carolina Chloride, Inc. v. Richland County, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that a member of the public has no legal right to rely solely upon the representations of county personnel and should consult the official record to determine the legal zoning classification of property.
​This case involves a dispute over the requirements for a candidate’s name to properly appear on a primary election ballet. The Supreme Court held “the unambiguous language and expression of legislative intent of § 8-13-1356(B) and (E) require an individual to file a Statement of Economic Interest at the same time and with the same official with whom a Statement of Intention of Candidacy is filed, and prohibit political party officials from accepting a SIC which is not accompanied by a SEI.” The Court demanded that the names of any non-exempt individuals who did not file with the appropriate political party a SEI simultaneously with a SIC be removed.
​Stephen P. Donohue sought to invalidate the City of North Augusta’s ordinance amending an existing redevelopment plan to include an economic development project not considered at the time the original plan was adopted.
Donohue contended that the city council’s failure to “redetermine that the property affected by the amended ordinance meets the criteria set forth in Section 31-6-80 (A) (7),” and violations of the state’s Freedom of Information Act required that the ordinance be invalidated. While the Court agreed that council’s actions violated FOIA, the Court cited the council’s compliance with procedural requirements as the basis for upholding the ordinance.
​In the case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, Good News Community Church filed suit against the town alleging its freedom of speech was violated when the town cited the church for exceeding the time limits for displaying temporary directional signs and for failing to include an event date on the signs. The United States Supreme Court ultimately determined that the church's freedom of speech had been violated because the sign regulations amounted to content-based restrictions of speech that did not withstand strict scrutiny.

References: §15
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 v.