Click here to view the video in your local VLC player.
To view archived court cases, visit the Supreme Court Video Portal.
The summary below each case is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what issues are included in a case which will be argued. The summary is not a limit on what issues a party to a case may present at oral argument.
Tuesday, June 3, 2025
Supreme Court Courtroom
2022-000581
Jon A. Hinson, Employee, Respondent, v. BS Telecommunications, Employer, and Old Republic Insurance Co., Carrier, Defendants, of which BS Telecommunications is the Appellant.
Michael Eugene Patterson, Jr. and Christopher Clinton Mingledorff, both of Mingledorff & Patterson, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellant. Alton Lamar Martin, Jr., of Martin & Martin Attorneys, PA, of Greenville, for Respondent.
This appeal from the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission arises out of a clincher agreement (the Agreement) between BS Telecommunications (Employer) and Jon A. Hinson (Claimant). Employer appeals the Commission's decision that Employer failed to fully comply with the Agreement by not making certain payments and the award of sanctions to Claimant.
2024-000286
The State, Respondent, v. Tony Tujuan Sweet, Appellant.
Appellate Defender Sarah Elizabeth Shipe, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, both of Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, all for Respondent.
In this case, the Court must decide whether to invalidate a guilty plea to trafficking in fentanyl under section 44-53-370(e) of the South Carolina Code due to the circuit court's alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction when accepting the plea.
2024-001321
Opternative, Inc., Appellant, v. South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners and the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, Respondents, and South Carolina Optometric Physicians Association, Respondent-Intervenor.
Miles Edward Coleman, of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Greenville; Joshua A. Windham and Robert J. McNamara, both of Institute for Justice, of Arlington, VA, all for Appellant. Kirby Darr Shealy, III, of Adams and Reese, LLP, of Columbia, for Respondent-Intervenor. Eugene Hamilton Matthews, of Richardson Plowden & Robinson, PA, of Columbia, for Respondents.
In this case, the Court will consider whether the Eye Care Consumer Protection Law of sections 40-24-10 and 40-24-20 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2024) violates equal protection or due process under the South Carolina Constitution by failing to serve a rational legislative purpose.