|
|
Summaries of Published Opinions by Civil Litigation Practice Group
Civil Rights Law
County of Charleston v. Sleepy Hollow Youth, Inc., 340 S.C. 174, 530 S.C.2d 636 (S.C. App. 2000). BMSM represented a sponsor of a group home for emotionally disabled children. They asserted various counterclaims to action brought against it by county, including claim that it was entitled to damages for discrimination by county in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The circuit court entered summary judgment for county. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that: (1) sponsor had standing to bring action against county for discrimination in violation of the FHA, and (2) genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether county's objection to placement of group home was result of discriminatory attitudes towards disabled. Julius H. Hines
Fleming v. Asbill, 326 S.C. 49, 483 S.E.2d 751 (1997). Represented defendant who was sued for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty as guardian ad litem for minor in private child custody dispute. Two questions certified to the South Carolina Supreme Court by the U.S. District Court. Held that guardian did not hold status of employee under South Carolina Tort Claims Act but that guardian did have immunity at common law for alleged acts committed within scope of her duties. Won summary judgment for defendant in federal court based on answer to second certified question. Charles J. Baker III
Constitutional Law
Asquith v. City of Beaufort, 139 F.3d 408 (4th Cir. 1998). BMSM filed amicus curiae brief. Street preachers brought actions against city, police, and city officials, challenging constitutionality of city noise ordinance. The U.S. District Court granted preliminary injunction in plaintiffs' favor. On appeal it was reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions. The court held dismissal was required with regard to plaintiffs who had criminal charges against them based on violations of the ordinance. The court also held that plaintiffs would not likely prevail on the merits that the ordinance was invalid or the validity as applied to them.
Election Law
Knight v. State Bd. of Canvassers, 374 S.E.2d 685 (S.C. 1988). BMSM represented the Dorchester Board of Canvassers in an action contesting the county sheriff election results. The court upheld the election despite a technical violation of the statute by the poll managers. David B. McCormack
Premises Liability
Staples v. Duell, 494 S.E.2d 639 (Ct. App. 1997). BMSM represented a defendant landowner in a premises liability case involving the landowner's duty to inspect for dangerous conditions on his property. Plaintiff was seriously injured after a dead tree fell in the night and onto an adjoining highway. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's award of summary judgment for the defendant, though the defendant had undertaken inspections of its property in the past. Benjamin Allston Moore, Jr., James D. Myrick.
Tax Law
Hawkins v. Bruno Yacht Sales, Inc., S.C. Supr. Ct. Op. No. 25592 (filed Feb. 3, 2003). The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed an earlier ruling in the South Carolina Court of Appeals that a county tax sale of a 52' sailboat owned by BMSM's client was void. Although the Supreme Court reversed two of the three original grounds for voiding the sale, it agreed that a county notice misinformed the taxpayer about the last day taxes could be paid to avoid the sale. Julius H. Hines
Hawkins v. Bruno Yacht Sales, Inc., 2000 WL 1056064 (S.C. App. 2000). BMSM represented a taxpayer who brought an action to set aside a tax sale of boat and restrain purchaser from selling or otherwise encumbering it. The Circuit Court entered judgment for county and purchaser. On appeal the court reversed and held that the tax sale was void due to county authorities' failure to strictly comply with statutory notice provisions regarding tax sales, and taxpayer was not judicially estopped from claiming ownership of the boat. Julius H. Hines
Rivers v. State, 327 S.C. 271, 490 S.E.2d 261 (S.C. 1997). This case concerns certain controversial state capital gains tax legislation enacted in 1988, 1989 and 1991. BMSM represented taxpayers who brought action against state alleging that the statute which retroactively decreased their capital gains tax refund violated takings clause and due process clause of state and federal constitutions. The Supreme Court held that: (1) taxpayers had vested interest in receipt of tax refund and, thus, statute did not violate takings clause, but (2) statute did violate substantive due process because of its excessive retroactivity. Henry E. Grimball
Piercing the Corporate Veil in South Carolina - In the recent case of Hunting V. Elders, 359 S.C. 217, 597 S.E.2d 803 (Ct. App. 2004) produced the first significant change in the piercing of the corporate veil doctrine in South Carolina in a decade. The ability to pierce the veil of a statutory close corporation or as subchapter “S” corporation has become more difficult as a result of the holdings in this case, concepts of which should carry over to a limited liability company. Published in the November 2006 issue of South Carolina Lawyer, the article written by Shawn M. Flanagan provides practical guidance to business lawyers attempting to understand and avoid application of the doctrine.
|
|
