Source: https://robinsongray.com/practice-areas/appellate-practice-group-2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 19:13:35+00:00

Document:
Robinson Gray’s appellate practice group has the skills and experience necessary to handle the appellate phase of any case.
An appeal is often necessary to bring an end to a case and to achieve the right result. Trial courts must resolve large volumes of cases quickly, making it difficult to decide legal issues correctly. By comparison, appellate courts handle much smaller caseloads over a longer period of time, and are able to focus on select issues. These courts also consider the impact their decision will have on your case as well as cases that arise in the future.
At Robinson Gray, our lawyers have the knowledge and experience to determine which issues should be raised on appeal and how to best present those issues in writing and oral argument. Many of Robinson Gray’s lawyers are former state and federal appellate court law clerks who understand how to craft written arguments that resonate with appellate judges. Words are weapons of the law, and a well written brief or oral argument can make a difference.
At Robinson Gray we handle all matters pending in federal and state appellate courts, including amici appearances and petitions for certiorari before the United States and South Carolina Supreme Courts. In addition, Robinson Gray offers a number of other appellate services.
An attorney fromRobinson Gray can join your team during or after trial to help with preserving issues for appeal or drafting post-trial motions. Robinson Gray can also arrange a panel of mock judges to review your briefs and put the attorney handling your appeal through the proverbial gauntlet to ensure he or she is ready for oral argument.
Whether we tried the case or retained thereafter, Robinson Gray’s appellate practice group has the skills and experience necessary to handle the appellate phase of any case in a way that is best calculated to achieve success.
York v. Dodgeland of Columbia, Inc., 749 S.E.2d 139 (S.C. Ct. App. 2013). The South Carolina Court of Appeals held that the circuit court did not err in compelling arbitration.
In re Jenkins, 784 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. 2015). This case involved a bankruptcy issue of first impression. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the debtor. Listen to the oral argument here.
Abbeville Cty. Sch. Dist. v. South Carolina, 767 S.E.2d 157 (S.C. 2014). A landmark case regarding the constitutional adequacy of public education system in South Carolina, this case was tried for 101 days and argued twice before the Supreme Court of South Carolina, resulting in a 3-2 decision in favor of the plaintiff school districts. The dissent viewed the decision as a “policy opinion on the state of public education in South Carolina” that violated the separation of powers doctrine and exceeded the Court’s scope of authority.
S.C. Public Interest Found. v. S.C. Transp. Infrastructure Bank, 744 S.E.2d 521 (S.C. 2013). Decided by the Supreme Court of South Carolina in its original jurisdiction, and after reviewing the public interest exception to the requirement of a particularized injury for standing, the Court ruled that the statute governing the composition of the board of directors of the South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank does not violate the state constitution’s dual office holding prohibitions or the separation of powers doctrine and therefore is constitutional.
Backus v. South Carolina, 133 S. Ct. 156 (2012). In this direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the decision of the three-judge court rejecting the constitutional and Voting Rights Act challenges to the South Carolina House of Representatives’s redistricting plan.
Ahrens v. State, 709 S.E.2d 54 (S.C. 2011). The plaintiff in this case challenged the legality of state statutes requiring public employees who retired and returned to work for the state to contribute a portion of their salary to the state retirement system as a term and condition of their employment. The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the statutes are valid and enforceable in every respect, and rejected the constitutional taking claim.
Hutto v. S.C. Ret. Sys., 773 F.3d 536 (4th Cir. 2014). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the state retirement system is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Listen to the oral argument here.
Hutto v. S.C. Ret. Sys., 2016 WL 4208093 (S.C. 2016). In this case, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the working retirees failed to state a claim for violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Watch the oral argument here.
Jackson v. Sanford, 731 S.E.2d 722 (S.C. 2011). Decided by the Supreme Court of South Carolina in its original jurisdiction, the court held that the governor’s partial veto of a line item appropriation to the State Budget and Control Board was unconstitutional.
Boiling v. United States, 220 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000). This case involved the question of whether erosion along the Intracoastal Waterway in Horry County, in areas where the government altered the land to create a continuously navigable channel, resulted in an unconstitutional taking. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard for determining when the claims accrued.
Garris v. Governing Bd. of S.C. Reinsurance Facility, 511 S.E.2d 48 (S.C. 1999). The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the Reinsurance Facility was an administrative agency and therefore required to comply with procedural due process protections and the constitutional prohibition against prosecution and adjudication of the same person.
Sowell Gray handled these cases pro bono as part of the Appellate Practice Project.
State v. Schrader-Falls, 2016 WL 4013758 (S.C. Ct. App. 2016). In this appeal from a murder conviction, the issue was whether the circuit court erred in requiring the defendant to testify prior to her expert witness.
State v. Evans, 2015 WL 7075490 (S.C. Ct. App. 2015). This was an appeal from a life sentence imposed for convictions of armed robbery, attempted murder, kidnapping, and grand larceny.
State v. Sprinkle, 2014 WL 7339363 (S.C. Ct. App. 2014). This was an appeal from convictions of first-degree burglary, first-degree assault and battery, and armed robbery. The case involved multiple issues, including a motion to suppress identification evidence, limitation of cross-examination in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the failure to charge a lesser-included offense.
Gainey v. Gainey, 2015 WL 93864 (S.C. Ct. App. 2015). At issue in this divorce case was the question of whether the family court properly denied a motion to approve a bona fide offer to purchase the former martial home and a motion to place the marital home on the market.
S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Joy J., 2013 WL 8507813 (S.C. Ct. App. 2013). Handled by the firm pro bono, this was an appeal from an order terminating parental rights.
Black v. Black, 2010 WL 10079492 (S.C. Ct. App. 2010). This divorce case involved multiple issues, including alimony, transmutation, valuation of assets, attorneys’ fees, marital fault, life insurance, and attorney disqualification.
In re Anonymous Member of the S.C. Bar, 389 S.C. 462 (2010). The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that a sexual relationship with the spouse of a current client is a per se violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct related to concurrent conflicts of interest.
Sartin v. McNair Law Firm, P.A., 756 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2014). In a case involving a complex procedural question regarding the proper scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), authorizing district courts to correct mistakes found in judgments and orders, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that an attorney’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal was the proximate cause of the client’s injury because the lower court order should have been affirmed. Listen to the oral argument here.
Pavilion Dev. Corp. v. Nexsen Pruet LLC, 2015 WL 4755645 (S.C. 2015). This case involved the novel question of whether a legal malpractice claim may be assigned to an adversary in litigation as part of the settlement of the case. The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that such assignments are void as against public policy. Watch the oral argument here.
Moore, Taylor, & Thomas, P.A. v. Banks, 2015 WL 9080386 (S.C. Ct. App. 2015). This case involved the question of whether an attorney owes a duty to a third party in a real estate closing. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case.
David Gooldy v. The Storage Center-Platt Springs, LLC, 781 S.E.2d 720 (S.C. Ct. App. 2015). The South Carolina Court of Appeals held that a reference in a deed showing the existence of a road did not warrant the presumption of an easement, and evidence was insufficient to demonstrate the intent to create an easement.
Robinson v. Estate of Harris, 698 S.E.2d 222 (S.C. 2010). In this heirs property dispute, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the homeowners on the grounds that the action to set aside a 1966 quiet title action was barred by the statute of limitations and doctrine of laches. Additionally, the court found that the homeowners were bona fide purchasers for value who did not receive notice pursuant to the recording statute.
Carter v. Verizon Wireless, 757 S.E.2d 528 (S.C. Ct. App. 2014). The South Carolina Court of Appeals agreed with the appellate panel that the claimant did not suffer a change of condition related to her knee injury.
Johnson v. Staffmark, 2014 WL 2580135 (S.C. Ct. App. 2014). The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of benefits based on the claimant’s failure to prove a causal relationship between her employment and injuries to her foot and leg.
Bone v. U.S. Food Serv., 744 S.E.2d 552 (S.C. 2013). The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that an order remanding the case to the commission for further proceedings does not constitute a final judgment and therefore is not immediately appealable. The firm represented amicus curiae in this case.
Bentley v. Spartanburg Cty., 730 S.E.2d 2d 296 (S.C. 2012). The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that a deputy sheriff’s post-traumatic stress disorder following a job-related fatal shooting of a suspect did not arise from an extraordinary and unusual condition of employment as required to be compensable mental injury. The firm represented amicus curiae in this case.
Thigpen v. Lexington Med. Ctr., 2012 WL 10841349 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012). The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the commission’s determination that the claimant failed to demonstrate by medical evidence the existence of a direct causal connection between the repetitive activities of her work and her carpal tunnel syndrome.
Jones v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 586 S.E.2d 211 (S.C. 2003). The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the claimant’s subsequent back problems and surgeries were not directly and causally related to her work accident; the claim was barred because the claimant committed fraud in the employment application process; and the Americans with Disabilities Act does not trump the Cooper determination regarding when fraud bars a claimant’s attempt to collect workers’ compensation benefits.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.