Supreme Court of South Carolina
Live event will begin Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 9:30 AM
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.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Coastal Carolina, Conway
09:30 a.m. 2018-001107 Daufuskie Island Utility Company, Appellant, v. South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff, Haig Point Club and Community Association Inc., Melrose Property Owner's Association, Inc., Bloody Point Property Owner's' Association and Beach Field Properties, Inc., Respondents.
Thomas P. Gressette, Jr. and G. Trenholm Walker, both of Walker Gressette Freeman & Linton, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellant. Jeffrey M. Nelson and Andrew M. Bateman, both of South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff, of Columbia, John J. Pringle, Jr. and Lyndey R. Z. Bryant, both of Adams and Reese, LLP, of Columbia, for Respondents.
In this direct appeal, Daufuskie Island Utility Co. appeals the order of the Public Service Commission regarding the adjustment of a public utility rate under Title 58 of the South Carolina Code.
10:00 a.m. 2018-001677 Scott Ledford, Employee, Petitioner, v. Department of Public Safety, Employer, and State Accident Fund, Carrier, Respondents.
E. Hood Temple, of Hatfield Temple, L.L.P., of Florence and J. Kevin Holmes, of The Steinberg Law Firm, L.L.P., of Charleston, for Petitioner. Sarah C. Sustusky and J. Gabriel Coggiola, both of Willson, Jones, Carter & Baxley, P.A., of Columbia, for Respondents.
The Court granted Ledford's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Ledford v. Dep't of Pub. Safety, Op. No. 2018-UP-280 (S.C. Ct. App. filed June 27, 2018), in which the court affirmed the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission and held: (1) the single commissioner was not required to recuse herself; (2) the Appellate Panel's decision to reverse the single commissioner's ruling to overrule the unappealed findings of a prior single commissioner was supported by substantial evidence; and (3) substantial evidence supported the Appellate Panel's findings that Ledford was not credible and his landscaping business remained lucrative following the injury.