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, April 1, 2025
Supreme Court Courtroom
2023-000778
City of Charleston, Petitioner, v. City of North Charleston and Millbrook Plantation, LLC, Respondents. AND Millbrook Plantation, LLC, Plaintiff, v. City of Charleston, Defendant. AND City of Charleston, Plaintiff, v. City of North Charleston and Millbrook Plantation, LLC, Defendants.
Wilbur E. Johnson, Russell Grainger Hines, both of Clement Rivers, LLP, of Charleston; Frances Isaac Cantwell, Julia Parker Copeland, both of City of Charleston Legal Department, all for Petitioner City of Charleston. David J. Parrish, of Maynard Nexsen, P.C., of Charleston and Kriston D. Neely, of North Charleston, for Respondent City of North Charleston. Bruce E. Miller, of Bruce E. Miller, P.A., of Charleston, for Respondent Millbrook Plantation, LLC.
We granted the City of Charleston's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in City of Charleston v. City of N. Charleston, 439 S.C. 6, 885 S.E.2d 151 (Ct. App. 2023). The City of Charleston argues (1) it has standing to challenge the City of North Charleston's annexation of a certain parcel of land, and (2) this Court should adopt the "prior jurisdiction doctrine," which would estop municipalities from annexing property after a different municipality had begun annexation proceedings for that property.
2023-000930
National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States and the City of Charleston, Petitioners, v. City of North Charleston, Respondent.
George Trenholm Walker, of Walker Gressette & Linton, LLC, of Charleston, for Petitioner National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. Wilbur E. Johnson, Russell Grainger Hines, of Clement Rivers, LLP, of Charleston; Frances Isaac Cantwell and Julia Parker Copeland, both of City of Charleston Legal Department, all for Petitioner City of Charleston. David J. Parrish, of Maynard Nexsen, P.C., of Charleston and Kriston D. Neely, of North Charleston, both for Respondent.
This Court granted National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States and the City of Charleston's petitions for writs of certiorari to review the court of appeals' opinion in Nat'l Tr. for Historic Pres. in United States v. City of N. Charleston, 439 S.C. 222, 886 S.E.2d 487 (Ct. App. 2023), which held National Trust and the City of Charleston did not have standing to challenge the City of North Charleston's annexation of an acre of land.
2024-001240
William M. Luce, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated natural persons, Plaintiff, v. Lexington County Health Services District, Inc., Brian D. Smith, in both his official and individual capacities; and Lynn Coggins, in both her official and individual capacities, Defendants.
Shaun C. Blake and Jenkins McMillan Mann, both of Mann Blake & Jackson; and Bryan D. Caskey, of Law Offices of Bryan Caskey, all of Columbia, for Plaintiff. J. Hagood Tighe, Matthew R. Korn and Shahin Vafai, all of Fisher & Phillips, LLP, of Columbia, for Defendants Lexington County Health Services District, Inc., Brian D. Smith and Lynn Coggins.
The Court granted a certified question from the District Court of South Carolina, asking whether, under the South Carolina Retirement System (SCRS) Act, an employer must deduct SCRS contributions from compensation a salaried, professional healthcare employee received for hours worked at shift differential, on-call, and premium pay rates.
Wednesday, April 2, 2025
Supreme Court Courtroom
2024-000065
South Carolina Public Interest Foundation and John Crangle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. Alan Wilson, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Willoughby & Hoefer, P.A., and Davidson, Wren & P.A., f/k/a Davidson, Wren & DeMasters, P.A., Respondents.
James Mixon Griffin, Margaret Nicole Fox, of Columbia, Badge Humphries, of Sullivan's Island, all of Griffin Humphries, LLC and James G. Carpenter, of The Carpenter Law Firm, of Greenville, for Appellants. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Solicitor General Robert D. Cook and Deputy Solicitor General J. Emory Smith, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent Attorney General. William H. Davidson, II and Kenneth P. Woodington, of Davidson & Wren, P.A., of Columbia, for Respondent Davidson & Wren, P.A. John S. Simmons, of Simmons Law Firm, LLC, James Todd Rutherford, of The Rutherford Law Firm, LLC, both of Columbia and Gerald Malloy, of Malloy Law Firm, of Hartsville, all for Respondent Willoughby & Hoefer, P.A.
The Court will hear on appeal whether the Attorney General acted within his statutory and constitutional authority in paying an attorneys' fee to two private law firms under a contingency fee agreement.
2023-001757
Mitchell Rivers, Respondent, v. State of South Carolina, Petitioner.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Brian Hollis Gibbs, both of Columbia, for Petitioner. Jessica M. Saxon, of Columbia, for Respondent.
n this post-conviction relief (PCR) case, Mitchell Rivers petitioned for writ of certiorari from the court of appeals opinion in Rivers v. State, Op. No. 2023-UP-261 (Ct. App. 2023), wherein the court of appeals reversed the PCR court's dismissal of Rivers' PCR application, finding Rivers' trial counsel was deficient in failing to renew a pretrial objection and that deficiency prejudiced Rivers. We will now consider whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the PCR court's determination that Rivers failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney did not object to the admission of collateral injury evidence in Rivers' homicide by child abuse prosecution.