• Alternative Dispute Resolution
  
• Appellate
  
• Banking
  
• Bankruptcy
  
• Business Litigation
  
• Church Law
  
• Collections
  
• Construction Law
  
• Contract Law
  
• Corporate Law
  
• Estate Planning
  
• Fidelity & Surety Law
  
• Hospital and Medical
  Malpractice Defense
  
• Insurance Coverage
  
• Landlord - Tenant
  
• Legal Malpractice Defense
  
• Litigation
  
• Mechanic’s Liens
  
• Military Law
  
• Nursing Home Liability Defense
  
• Personal Injury
  
• Premises Liability
  
• Products Liability
  
• Probate Law
  
• Professional Liability
  
• Real Estate
  
• Retirement Plans
  
• Taxation
  
• Workers’ Compensation

This page is a compilation of recent developments in our firm’s Practice Areas. Updates are presented chronologically below. To sort by Practice Area, select a Practice Area from the menu at left.

In re Rountree, 478 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2007).
Docket No. 05-1123, decided February 27, 2007.
Practice Areas: Bankruptcy

A personal injury defendant hired a private investigator to assess the validity of the plaintiff’s injuries. The investigator befriended the plaintiff and induced her to attempt activities in which she was reluctant to participate because of her injuries. The defendant used videotapes of the plaintiff participating in the activities in its defense. The plaintiff subsequently sued the private investigator and obtained a $1,000,000 judgment for fraud and emotional distress. The private investigator filed for bankruptcy and the plaintiff petitioned the Bankruptcy Court to determine the dischargeability of the judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) did not apply as an exception to discharge in this case because the private investigator did not actually obtain anything from the plaintiff through fraud.

Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 365 (2007).
Docket No. 05-996, decided February 21, 2007.
Practice Areas: Bankruptcy

In this case, the United States Supreme Court held that 11 U.S.C. § 706 does not confer upon bankruptcy debtors an unqualified right to convert a case from a Chapter 7 proceeding to a Chapter 13 proceeding. Rather, the right to convert is absolute only in the absence of extreme circumstances, such as when, as in this case, the debtor is found to have concealed property from creditors in bad faith.

Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007).
Docket No. 05-1256, decided February 20, 2007.
Practice Areas: Litigation

In this wrongful death case, a widow sued Philip Morris for its alleged negligence and deceit which allegedly led to the death of her husband, a heavy smoker. A jury awarded the widow $821,000 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages. The United States Supreme Court held that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury that it could not consider the harm Philip Morris may have caused others but could only consider the harm caused to the widow and her husband. The Court stated that due process prohibits states from using punitive damage awards to punish defendants for injuries inflicted upon nonparties to the litigation.

South Carolina Dept. of Mental Health v. McMaster, 372 S.C. 175, 642 S.E.2d 552 (2007).
Opinion No. 26269, decided February 20, 2007.
Practice Areas: Estate Planning

In this case, the South Carolina Supreme Court found that the deeds and the legislative acts giving rise to the state mental hospital/asylum clearly evidenced the creation of a charitable trust in favor of the Department of Mental Health. Therefore, the Legislature could not terminate or alter the trust, but instead must seek court approval. Because the property was no longer necessary to house and treat mental patients, the court held that the doctrine of equitable deviation should be utilized to allow the property to be sold. However, the proceeds of any sale were required to be held in trust for the benefit of the Department of Mental Health and the treatment of mental patients.

Grant v. Grant Textiles, 372 S.C. 196, 641 S.E.2d 869 (2007).
Opinion No. 26267, decided February 20, 2007.
Practice Areas: Workers' Compensation

This case involved the common question of whether the claimant’s injuries arose out of and within the course of his employment. The claimant was on the way to meet with clients when he stopped to remove an animal carcass from the road and was subsequently struck by a passing vehicle. The South Carolina Supreme Court found that the claimant’s act, while outside of his regular duties, was undertaken in good faith to advance his employer’s interests and was therefore within the course of his employment.

Gecy v. Bagwell, 372 S.C. 237, 642 S.E.2d 569 (2007).
Opinion No. 26263, decided February 20, 2007.
Practice Areas: Election Law

An election commission—chaired by Barnes Alford associate J. Todd Kincannon—heard an election protest and found that two voters in a city council election had illegally cast ballots in the wrong precinct. This prevented the initially certified winning candidate from garnering the necessary majority.  The commission, in an order by Mr. Kincannon, voided the certified election results and ordered a new election. The South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the commission’s order, finding that state law requires voters to cast ballots in the precinct where they live and that compliance with this requirement is an essential element of the voting process.

Moore v. Weinberg, 373 S.C. 209, 644 S.E.2d 740 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4209, decided February 20, 2007.
Practice Areas: Legal Malpractice Defense

An attorney represented a client who owed money to a third party on a promissory note. The attorney drafted an assignment to the third party of any recovery his client received by judgment or settlement in a separate lawsuit. When the lawsuit settled, the attorney paid the settlement funds to his client but failed to pay the third party. The third party brought an action against the attorney for negligence, conversion, and civil conspiracy. The South Carolina Court of Appeals found that summary judgment was appropriate on the conspiracy claim, but inappropriate on the negligence and conversion claims. Novation was not a defense to any claims because it is a defense to contractual claims, whereas all of the third party’s claims were tort claims.

Hardin v. SCDOT, 371 S.C. 598, 641 S.E.2d 437 (2007).
Opinion No. 26262, decided February 12, 2007.
Practice Areas: Real Estate

This case involved two inverse condemnation actions brought by land owners alleging that the state’s realignment and closing of certain roadways constituted a “taking” by depriving them of their access to previously accessible public roadways. The South Carolina Supreme Court overruled prior precedent that focused on a landowner’s “special injuries” in favor of an analysis focusing on how any road reconfiguration affects a property owner’s easements (access to public roads adjoining his property). The court relied on the modern principle that road closings and realignments which do not actually “take” land or an easement from a property owner do not give rise to compensable takings because those actions do not directly interfere with an owner’s rights in the property as a whole.

Hardee v. McDowell, 372 S.C. 413, 642 S.E.2d 632 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4206, decided February 12, 2007.
Practice Areas: Workers' Compensation

A general contractor attempted to transfer liability for a workers’ compensation claim to the Uninsured Employers’ Fund. The general contractor had requested and received proof of insurance from its subcontractor at the beginning of the year, but it did not request such proof prior to hiring the subcontractor to work on the job in question. The South Carolina Court of Appeals held that S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-415 requires a contractor to collect proof of insurance from its subcontractor for each job the subcontractor performs, regardless of the number of jobs the subcontractor performs in a given year. The South Carolina Supreme Court later clarified that a contractor must collect proof of insurance from its subcontractor each time the subcontractor is actually hired to perform work. See Hardee v. McDowell, 381 S.C. 445, 673 S.E.2d 813 (2009).

Marcum v. Bowden, 372 S.C. 452, 643 S.E.2d 85 (2007).
Opinion No. 26259, decided February 5, 2007.
Practice Areas: Personal Injury

In this case, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed course with regard to social host liability for the service of alcohol to underage persons. The court announced a new common law rule that an adult social host who knowingly and intentionally serves or causes to be served an alcoholic beverage to a person he knows or reasonably should know is between the ages of 18 and 20 is liable to the person served and to any other person for damages proximately resulting from the host’s service of alcohol.

 

Archives
April 2009
March 2009 | February 2009 | January 2009
December 2008 | November 2008 | October 2008
September 2008 | August 2008 | July 2008
June 2008 | May 2008 | April 2008
March 2008 | February 2008 | January 2008
December 2007 | November 2007 | October 2007
September 2007 | August 2007 | July 2007
June 2007 | May 2007 | April 2007
March 2007 | February 2007 | January 2007

 

Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, LLP makes this information available as a service to its clients and friends. This information is not a solicitation or an effort to provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney to determine if it is applicable to a specific legal need.