Contact Us:

Phone: 864-242-1114

Fax: 864-242-0162

 

What’s New  

The summary following each opinion is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what a particular opinion decides. The summary is not necessarily a full description of the issues discussed in an opinion.

            

Advance Sheet update

 

 

March 1, 2010

Doe v. Roe, No. 26779, is online.

 

Mother appealed after the Court of Appeals reversed the family court's order terminating Father's parental rights.  The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the family court's determination that the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights (TPR) were satisfied. In addition to willfully failing to visit and support Daughter for over six months, the Court noted other examples of how TPR would be in the best interest of Daughter, including Father's inability to keep a job, Father's failure to ask for visitation with Daughter prior to filing the lawsuit, and the preservation of Daughter's current living situation.

Justice Pleicones dissented in a separate opinion.

 

Verenes v. Alvanos, No. 26780, is online.

After having suit filed against him for causes of action including breach of fiduciary duty of care, breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty and for an accounting, Alvanos appealed following the denial of his demand for a jury trial.  The Court affirmed, finding that Alvanos had no right to a jury trial because the nature of the relief being sought by Verenes was equitable.  The Court held that even though Alvanos would have to pay monetary damages if the allegations were proven, the main purpose behind the action was equitable.

 

Youmans v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., No. 26781, is online.

The Court dismissed as improvidently granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Youmans v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 380 S.C. 263, 670 S.E.2d 1 (Ct. App. 2008).

State v. Stahlnecker, No. 26782, is online

After being convicted and sentenced for criminal sexual conduct with a minor and lewd act on a child, Stahlnecker appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting certain testimony. The Court affirmed Stahlnecker's convictions.  The Court first held that S.C. Code Ann. Section 17-23-175 (Supp. 2008) regarding the admissibility of out-of-court statements made by children under 12 does not violate ex post facto laws because it merely authorizes the introduction of new evidence and does not alter substantial personal rights. The Court next held that admissions made by Stahlnecker to the child's guardian ad litem (GAL) did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the GAL was not a state actor and the statements were made voluntarily by Stahlnecker. Finally, the Court held that the statement made by the child to her mother was admissible as an excited utterance because it occurred immediately after the encounter in question.

Justice Pleicones concurred in result only.

This information was prepared to give you some general information on the law. It is not intended as legal advice about any particular problem. You should consult an attorney for further information.