South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Banks v. St. Matthew Baptist Church The defendant-pastor’s allegedly defamatory remarks were made in the context of a congregational meeting, at which the issue of whether plaintiffs would continue as the church’s trustees was discussed; nevertheless, our courts can decide whether the remarks were defamatory pursuant to neutral principles of law without delving into church doctrine or governance.

Tagged with: Defamation

Widenhouse v. Colson Even though the causes of action of criminal conversation and alienation of affections are contrary to S.C. public policy, and even though S.C. Code Ann. § 15-35-960 of the S.C. Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act says, “The provisions of this article do not apply to foreign judgments based on claims which are contrary to the public policies of this State,” application of § 15-35-960 to prevent enforcement of respondent’s North Carolina alienation of affections and criminal conversation judgment would violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

State v. Dykes Where the General Assembly based its statutory scheme of the satellite monitoring of sex offenders on the likelihood of re-offending, S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-540(H) – which precludes judicial review for persons convicted of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree or lewd act on a minor – is unconstitutional.

Disabato v. South Carolina Association of School Administrators If a fact inquiry reveals that defendant is a public body subject to the Freedom of Information Act because it receives public funds en masse, then application of the FOIA to defendant does not burden defendant’s First Amendment rights of speech and association substantially more than necessary to serve the important state interests furthered by the FOIA.

South Carolina Public Interest Foundation v. South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank Since the respondent Transportation Infrastructure Bank’s board of directors has the power to “borrow money through issuance of bonds and other forms of indebtedness,” and since it is within the province of the legislature to incur debt on behalf of the state, there is a constitutional nexus between the powers and responsibilities of the directors on the board and members of the General Assembly

Tagged with: General Assembly

State v. Dykes Where the General Assembly based its imposition of lifetime satellite monitoring of sex offenders on the likelihood of re-offending, S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-540(H) – which precludes judicial review for persons convicted of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree or lewd act on a minor – is unconstitutional

Tagged with: sex offenders

Hampton v. Haley Although an executive agency is generally not required to spend all appropriated funds, since the 2012-2013 Appropriations Act expressed the clear intent of the General Assembly that an entire $51 million appropriation be spent on premium increases for the state group health insurance plan and that plan enrollees not bear any of the premium increase, and since members of the Budget and Control Board all acknowledged that the appropriation indicated that intent, the Board violated the separation of powers when it decided to require enrollees to pay half the premium increase.

Hampton v. Haley The General Assembly appropriated funds so the state could pay all of the health insurance premium increases for state employees, a fact acknowledged by the State Budget and Control Board.

Tagged with: Health Insurance

Bryson v. State Budget & Control Board Petitioner brought this suit seeking a declaration that the S.C. Budget and Control Board’s Aug. 8, 2012 decision raising enrollee premiums for the state’s health insurance plan was a violation of the constitutional separation of powers.

Brown v. Town of Cary A resident of Cary, N.C., loses his constitutional challenge to a local sign ordinance, cited by the town to demand removal of a sign painted on the resident’s house saying “Screwed by the Town of Cary”; the 4th Circuit reverses the district court decision for the resident, and says the Cary sign ordinance is content neutral and passes constitutional scrutiny.