Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Applicant Gregory McHam appealed the denial of his application for post-conviction relief. He contended that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to renew a motion to suppress drug evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the PCR judge erred in finding defendant's trial counsel was not deficient, but that counsel's failure to renew the objection to drug evidence was not deficient performance such that defendant's constitutional rights were violated. However, the Court agreed with the PCR judge's ultimate findings that defendant did not establish prejudice and did not prove his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel as his Fourth Amendment claim failed on its merits. Consequently, the decision of the PCR judge was affirmed as modified. View "McHam v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

In 1999 and 2001, Respondent John Hollman went to Appellants TLC Laser Eye Centers, LLC and the TLC Laser Center (the Centers) for a series of eye surgeries. In the several years following the surgeries, respondent's vision deteriorated. He sued the Centers' doctors and the Centers themselves alleging medical malpractice. Respondent's wife sued for loss of consortium. Respondents requested a patient database the Centers maintained through the discovery process. The Centers resisted, but was eventually ordered to produce the database under a protective order. While this case was still pending, respondents joined a class action against appellants. Before the database was produced, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which they settled all their personal state and federal claims. The Centers were subsequently dismissed from the litigation. Respondents' claims against the doctors continued. As a result of the settlement, respondents withdrew as lead plaintiffs in the class action, and a new plaintiff took their place. The class action plaintiff requested the database. Appellants filed a notice of motion and motion for rule to show cause, motion to modify the protective order, and motion for sanctions in the class action although they were no longer parties in that action. The class action court issued an order denying the motion. Appellants moved for reconsideration. Respondents then settled their individual claims against the remaining state court defendants. Appellants moved the court to order respondents' counsel to prepare an order denying appellants' Rule 59(e) motion or, in the alternative, that the court prepare such an order. The trial court held a hearing on the motion denied it in part and granted it in part. It denied appellants' motion for reconsideration, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appellants' request as a result of the dismissal of the case. Notwithstanding this finding, it also held that settlement and dismissal of the case operated as a final adjudication, barring further litigation of pre-settlement violations of the protective order. It held appellants waived their right to a written order denying the Rule 59(e) motion by failing to respond to respondents' counsel's letter advising of the impending dismissal of the case without an order on appellants' Rule 59(e) motion. With respect to the protective order, the court held it retained jurisdiction to hear appellants' request for return of the database and granted their motion for its return. Upon direct appeal to the Supreme Court, the issue was the denial of a motion for entry of a ruling on a motion for reconsideration and the motion for rule to show cause, for sanctions, and for modification of a protective order. The Court concluded that the trial court erred when it held it lacked jurisdiction to enter an order ruling on appellants' motion for reconsideration after the action had been dismissed when a protective order governed disclosure of certain materials discovered in that action. View "TLC Laser Eye Centers v. Woolfson" on Justia Law

Appellant Thalma Barton appealed an Administrative Law Court's order that affirmed the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services' (DPPPS) decision to deny her parole. Although two-thirds of the members of the Parole Board voted in favor, the Board ultimately denied parole, citing the seriousness of Appellant's offense. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Administrative Law Court erred in interpreting the two-thirds provision requiring Appellant to obtain five Parole Board votes instead of four, and that retroactive application of that provision constituted an ex post facto violation. Because Appellant received the necessary number of votes, she should have been granted parole. The Court therefore reversed the Administrative Law Court's decision. View "Barton v. SCDPPP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the failure to complete a mediation conference in a timely manner does not divest a trial court of jurisdiction, and dismissal is not mandated. South Carolina Code 15-79-125 requires a pre-suit mediation process for medical malpractice claims, and that the conference be completed within a 120-day period, which may be extended. The issue before the Court centered on whether the failure to complete the mediation conference in a timely manner divested the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction and required dismissal. The contrary decision of the trial court was reversed and the case remanded for the pre-suit mediation process to be completed. View "Ross v. Waccamaw Community Hospital" on Justia Law

Lawton Limehouse, Sr. ("Father") and Lawton Limehouse, Jr. ("Son") each sued attorney Paul Hulsey, and his law practice (collectively, "Hulsey") for defamation arising out of statements Hulsey made about L&L Services, LLC ("L&L"), a staffing agency they owned. Local newspapers published articles concerning housing raids performed on homes rented by L&L and fines assessed for overcrowding, inadequate heating and plumbing, and running illegal boarding houses. Hulsey filed a class action lawsuit in federal court on behalf of former employees of L&L, alleging violations of the RICO Act and other state and federal laws. One article quoted Hulsey as stating that L&L engaged in a "classic racketeering scheme . . . just like Tony Soprano." Neither Father nor Son was mentioned by name in the article. The case was moved to federal court based on the RICO claim; the federal court remanded the case back to the state court on the ground it lacked federal question jurisdiction over the issues presented. After the remand, the state court clerk of court entered a default against Hulsey. Following a damages hearing, a jury awarded Father $2.39 million in actual damages and $5 million in punitive damages. While the appeal in Father's case was pending, a damages hearing was held for Son's case. A jury awarded Son $1 million in actual damages and $2.6 million in punitive damages. Hulsey appealed both judgments. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court found that the state court proceedings were void as the lack of a certified remand order precluded the state court from resuming jurisdiction over the cases. The cases were remanded back to the circuit court to start over from the procedural point at which the state court received a certified remand order from the federal court. View "Limehouse v. Hulsey" on Justia Law

Petitioner Robert Taylor appealed the post-conviction relief court's denial of relief on the grounds that he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel though his plea counsel failed to advise him of the consequences of a guilty plea. He also argued that counsel failed to fully investigate one of the charges prior to his plea. Finding that Petitioner did not demonstrate he was prejudiced by his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Taylor v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

In 2001, Petitioner James Miller pled guilty to committing a lewd act on a child under sixteen, and criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature. He was sentenced for the lewd act to fifteen years in prison, suspended upon ten years of service and five years' probation. Petitioner was also to undergo counseling and have no contact with children while on probation. Probation began in 2005; however Petitioner was not immediately released, but referred for review as to whether he should be deemed a sexually violent predator (SVP) and subjected to civil commitment. The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court was the question of whether Petitioner's probation for a criminal offense should have been tolled during his civil commitment as a SVP. The lower courts affirmed the tolling, but the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed. View "South Carolina v. Miller" on Justia Law

Appellant John Rainey sued the Honorable Nikki Haley, Goveror of South Carolina, seeking a declaration that the Governor violated the State Ethics Act when she was a member of the House of Representatives. The circuit court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, finding the House Ethics Committee had exclusive jurisdiction to hear ethics complaints against its members. The Supreme Court agreed and affirmed. View "Rainey v. Haley" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Edward Sloan and the South Carolina Public Interest Foundation filed suit in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction for a determination of whether the South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank was constitutional. Plaintiffs alleged the Bank violated both the dual office holding and the separation of powers prohibitions of the South Carolina Constitution. Finding the statute at issue here (11-43-140, So. Car. Code (2011)) was constitutional, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Bank. View "SC Public Interest Foundation v. SC Transportation Infrastructure Bank" on Justia Law

Suits were filed in Alabama and South Carolina in this divorce case. In 2007, the husband filed for divorce in Alabama, alleging he was a resident of Alabama, and his wife was a resident of South Carolina. Wife accepted service of the complaint, but approximately one month later, sued in South Carolina effectively responding point for point to the husband's Alabama case. After the wife's attempts to serve her husband failed, she was permitted to serve her husband by publication in Alabama. The husband never responded to her pleading. An Alabama attorney filed a limited notice of appearance on the wife's behalf in Alabama, challenging jurisdiction and moving the court to dismiss the husband's complaint. The Alabama court denied the wife's motion and set the matter for trial. Meanwhile, in South Carolina, the court awarded the wife alimony and divided the marital property. The South Carolina court found it had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the division of property, noting the husband's Alabama attorney sought to have the South Carolina action dismissed, but was not admitted pro hac vice in South Carolina, and therefore did not respond to husband's motion. A hearing was held in Alabama; wife's counsel had withdrawn and was not replaced. The Alabama court found it had jurisdiction over the parties and their property, declared the South Carolina judgment null and void, and divided the parties' marital property. With his Alabama judgment, the husband filed a Rule 60(b) motion in South Carolina to have wife's judgment vacated. Upon review, the South Carolina Supreme Court concluded: the Alabama court's grant of divorce should be given full faith and credit; the wife was not entitled to bring her South Carolina action for division of property or attorney's fees; by making a limited appearance in Alabama, wife was bound by Alabama law, and abandoned her opportunity to contest personal jurisdiction there. Since Alabama would have given its order res judicata effect, it was entitled to full faith and credit. Therefore, the husband's Rule 60(b) motion the South Carolina orders should have been granted. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Ware v. Ware" on Justia Law