South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

  A plaintiff was entitled to collect on a contempt award against a national business franchise by garnishing two bank accounts in the franchise’s name because the current owner of the franchise failed to establish that it had actually loaned ...

Although a district court made errors in certifying a defendant class, including failing to timely appoint class counsel or ensuring the requirements of Federal Rule 23 were satisfied, the objecting parties’ failure to timely object to these defects and the ...

Where plaintiffs challenging Mississippi’s death penalty practices subpoenaed the Virginia Department of Corrections in the hopes of gathering information that would help them prove deficiencies in Mississippi’s practices, the subpoena was quashed because the department had already produced relevant information ...

The plaintiff in this slip-and-fall case knew the defendant-hospital was a charitable entity (and in fact so alleged in his complaint); moreover, the parties’ attorneys repeatedly discussed the $300,000 cap set out in the Charitable Funds Act. Even though the ...

Where a contraceptive device, regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, failed to work as intended, forcing the plaintiff to undergo a total hysterectomy to have it removed, the manufacturer of the device could not remove the action to federal ...

  When the circuit court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, it should have done so without prejudice, giving plaintiff a chance to amend its complaint, unless such an amendment would clearly have been futile. Since the record indicates no such futility, the ...

  The defendant-general contractor knew generally that its mail was being sent to an Air Force Post Office and that it was not immediately notified when it received mail at the Air Force Post Office, yet it appears the contractor ...

The district court did not adequately consider evidence the settlement was the product of collusion or that it harmed certain members of the class, whose interests were different than the representative members.   Background   This appeal of a class-action ...

There were technical defects in plaintiffs’ service of process on defendants Hynie and Brown in the United Kingdom; however, there is no indication that Hynie and Brown failed to receive notice of this action. Furthermore, Rule 4(m), FRCP, gives plaintiff ...

As our Court of Appeals said, given the stage of plaintiff’s case, the case could have been dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), SCRCP, by stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who had appeared in the action. However, contrary to the ...