South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Where a class member objects to a proposed settlement, it must first state its objection with specificity. Then the settling parties must demonstrate that the proposed settlement satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). The district court must ...

Where a party consents to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, but then seeks to withdraw it before any other party consents, it need not show good cause to withdraw its consent. Background A district court may refer a case ...

Where South Carolina terminated its enrollment agreements with Planned Parenthood because it provided abortion services, a woman who used Planned Parenthood for her gynecological care had standing to sue to enjoin the termination on the grounds it violated Medicaid’s free-choice-of-provider ...

Where abortion providers challenged South Carolina legislation that bans abortions after an ultrasound detects a “fetal heartbeat,” they had third-party standing to do so because they would suffer an injury-in-fact from enforcement and could reasonably be expected to frame the ...

Where a man sued the Maryland governor and attorney general over an executive order that he interpreted as prohibiting him from bidding on state procurement contracts due to his personal boycotts of Israel-tied products, but the executive order only prohibited ...

Where the South Carolina governor had no responsibility for enforcing a provision in the state budget that prohibits school districts from using appropriated funds to impose mask mandates, and the South Carolina attorney general had neither implemented nor threatened to ...

Where DIRECTV prevailed on its Federal Communications Act claim against an individual who stole satellite transmissions, but had to spend more than $60,000 to recover the judgment, its motion to recover fees and costs was granted. Although the statute did ...

Where a historically Black university sought remedies for alleged groundwater contamination caused by an adjacent industrial park, the suit was improperly removed to federal court. The defendants’ adherence to federal law did not mean they were “acting under” federal supervision. ...

Plaintiffs requested certain documents (the “midnight documents”), and defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., violated a discovery order by not producing the requested documents until midway through the trial. As a result, Rule 37(b)(2) applies, making sanctions proper. We affirm the circuit court’s ...

Although (1) plaintiff is a South Carolina resident, (2) defendant conducts extensive business in South Carolina and (3) it would not be constitutionally unreasonable to require defendant to litigate in South Carolina, since (1) the motorcycle in question was designed ...