Cases

370 S.C. 75 (2006) 634 S.E.2d 646 Anna Martha DREHER, Appellant, v. J. Clarence DREHER, III, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Julius Clarence Dreher, Jr., and as Trustee of the J.C. Dreher, Jr. Trust, Respondent. No. 26205. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard June 20, 2006. Decided August 21, 2006.

Chief Justice TOAL. We granted the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control’s (DHEC) petition for a writ of certio-rari to review the court of appeals’ decision in Dreher v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 399 S.C. 259, 730 S.E.2d 922 (Ct.App.2012), reversing the Administrative Law Court’s (ALC) denial of Ann Dreher’s (Respondent) bridge construction permit applicati

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Crescent Homes SC, LLC, Appellant, v. CJN, LLC, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2022-000897 Appeal From Greenville County Charles B. Simmons, Jr., Master-in-Equity Opinion No. 6093 Heard May 9, 2024 – Filed November 20, 2024

Rel: December 1, 2023 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM

January 3, 1927. The opinion of the Court was delivered by An action for the cancellation of a deed executed by one L.L. Hendrix in favor of the defendants, and for judgment *Page 180 against the defendants in the sum of $500 for rents and profits, and for the sum of $1,000 for trespass. The decree of Judge Johnson, which will be reported, states fully the facts, history and nature of the controversy. When the case was called for trial counsel for

April 10, 1929. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Appeal from a decree of his Honor, Judge Mann, denying claim of homestead exemption in certain assets of the estate of J.H. Lee, deceased. The facts are these: On April 7, 1927, J.H. Lee borrowed from bank $250.00, and gave his note therefor, secured by a mortgage upon crops *Page 127 to be planted during that year and upon certain live stock and farming implements. Five days later, on April

February 7, 1919. The opinion of the Court was delivered by There was evidence that the plaintiff was going along Gist street in the city of Columbia; that Gist street ran through the yard of the defendant mills company; that the street had gates at both the entrance into and exit of the street from the mill yard; that the gate of entrance was open; that as the plaintiff was going through the gate a watchman of the defendant said to the plaintiff, "You can't go through there;" that plaintiff

October 13, 1937. In 1929, as we gather from the amended complaint, the plaintiff and the defendant Dreher entered into an oral contract, whereby the former agreed to sell to the latter, and the latter agreed to purchase from the former, a tract of land containing about 26 acres for the sum of $1,052.00, payable as follows: $240.00 in cash, and one-tenth of the balance, with interest at 6 per cent. per annum, each year until the entire amount should be paid. With the consent of the plaintiff,

341 S.C. 15 (2000) 532 S.E.2d 876 Jennie Dreher EVINS, Respondent, v. RICHLAND COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, City of Columbia, South Carolina, County of Richland, South Carolina, and the Historic Columbia Foundation, Defendants, of whom City of Columbia, South Carolina, and County of Richland, South Carolina, are Appellants. No. 25141. Supreme Court of South Carolina.

OPINION AND ORDER Margaret B. Seymour, Senior United States District Judge Petitioner Matthew Jamison is an inmate in custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. Petitioner currently is housed at the Broad River Correctional Institution in Columbia, South Carolina. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 22, 2015, alleging that he is being detained

Opinion PALMER, J. Municipalities ordinarily have a duty of care with respect to the maintenance of public sidewalks, and, under General Statutes § lSa-149,1 they are *3liable for damages caused by a breach of that duty. Pursuant to General Statutes § 7-163a,2 however, a mun

922 A.2d 1043 (2007) 282 Conn. 454 AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY No. 17651. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued February 15, 2007. Decided May 15, 2007. *1044 John W. Lemega, with whom was Aubrey E. Ruta, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff). Wi

*594KELLER, Justice, concurring. In my opinion, the trial court correctly granted a judgment NOV in favor of Appellants because Appellees failed to prove an element of their prima facie case — i.e., that they would have been promoted to the rank of lieutenant were it not for Chief Jones’s intentional discrimination in favor of then-Sergeants Dreher an

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court The State, Respondent, v. Wallace Steve Perry, Petitioner. Appellate Case No. 2017-001965 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS Appeal from Greenville County Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge Opinion No. 27963 Heard March 6, 2019 – Filed May 6, 2020 REVERSED Kerri Rupert, Murphy & Grantland, P.A.,

*872Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge BUTZNER wrote the opinion, in which Judge HAMILTON and Judge GARBIS joined. OPINION BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge: Benjamin F. Cades appeals district court orders denying his motion to remand his complaint to state court and granting defendants H & R Block and Beneficial National B

*98Justice PLEICONES Dissenting: I respectfully dissent, and would hold the circuit court erred in limiting the scope of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism’s (PRT’s) easement over Inlet Harbour Drive. The circuit court’s finding of an implied easement has not been appealed and is therefore the law of the case. E.g. Drehe

ACTING JUSTICE PLEICONES: This is an appeal from a circuit court order holding that the Appellants have no legal or equitable interests in certain real and personal property located in South Carolina, and enjoining the Appellants from utilizing certain disputed service marks and names. In this lead opinion I explain why I would reverse the entire order. *215

380 S.C. 206 (2008) 669 S.E.2d 591 Cindy Barrett GARNETT, Plaintiff, v. WRP ENTERPRISES, INC. & Revmax, Inc. d/b/a Thrifty Car Rental and Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Defendants, Of whom Philadelphia Insurance Company is the, Petitioner, and WRP Enterprises, Inc. & Revmax, Inc. d/b/a Thrifty Car Rental are the, Respondents. No. 26566. Supreme Court o

379 S.C. 593 (2008) 666 S.E.2d 908 In the Matter of Betsy M. CAMPBELL and Robert S. Campbell, Jr., Mary Schuyler Campbell, Respondent, v. Betsy M. Campbell and Robert S. Campbell, Jr., of whom Betsy M. Campbell is Petitioner. No. 26540. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard June 12, 2008. Decided September 8, 2008.

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which CORNELIA A. CLARK, C.J., JANICE M. HOLDER, GARY R. WADE, and SHARON G. LEE, JJ., joined. OPINION This appeal involves a dispute regarding the civil liability of the Catholic Diocese of Memphis for acts of child sexual abuse allegedly