Live event will begin:
Select the South Carolina Court of Appeals Courtroom I or Courtroom II below to view upcoming cases.
To view archived court cases, visit the South Carolina Court of Appeals Video Portal.
South Carolina Court of Appeals Courtroom I
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, March 13, 2025
Courtroom 1
10:00 a.m.
(Time Limits: 10-10-5)
2023-001417
James G. Sercu and Sherri A. Sercu, Respondents, v. Douglas Steven Hart, Appellant.
Charles Cantzon Foster, II of Foster Law Offices, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant Douglas S. Hart; James Randall Davis and Matthew Gordon Rogers of Davis Frawley, LLC, of Lexington, for Respondents James G. Sercu and Sherri A. Sercu.
10:40 a.m.
(Time Limits: 10-10-5)
2023-001663
South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission, Respondent, v. WestPoint Home, LLC, Appellant.
Matthew Todd Carroll of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, and Herbert Beigel, of Tuscon, AZ, of Columbia, for Appellant WestPoint Home, LLC; James Keith Roberts, of Columbia, for Respondent South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission.
11:20 a.m.
(Time Limits: 20-20-10)
2022-001332
Andrew Pampu, Appellant-Respondent, v. Erin Wingo, David Wingo, and Colin J. Gahagan, Respondents-Appellants.
Thomas J. Rode and Sarah D. Baum, both of Charleston, and Kimberly C. Lau and James E. Figliozzi, of New York, NY, for Appellant-Respondent Andrew Pampu; C. Mitchell Brown and Jonathan Mark Knicely of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, John Martin Grantland of Murphy & Grantland, PA, and Madison Caroline Guyton, Susan Olmert Porter all of Columbia, for Respondent-Appellants Erin Wingo and David Wingo; David L. Moore, Jr. of Turner Padget Graham & Laney, PA of Greenville SC for Respondent-Appellant Colin J. Gahagan.
In this defamation action, Appellant-Respondent Andrew Pampu seeks review of the circuit court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on his civil conspiracy claim. Pampu argues there was sufficient evidence of the elements of civil conspiracy to support the jury's verdict for him. Respondents-Appellants David Wingo and Erin Wingo challenge the circuit court's denial of their direct verdict and JNOV motions on Pampu's defamation claim. They argue that collateral estoppel precludes Pampu from establishing the falsity of their alleged defamatory statements because Clemson University's administrative hearing board found that Pampu committed sexual misconduct by having sex with Ms. Wingo when she was intoxicated and did not have the capacity to consent. The Wingos also argue the circuit court erred by: (1) excluding evidence related to Clemson's disciplinary investigation of Pampu's alleged sexual misconduct and the subsequent settlement of Pampu's lawsuit against Clemson; (2) admitting a redacted version of Mr. Wingo's letter to Pampu's fraternity; (3) failing to instruct the jury as to Mr. Wingo's qualified privilege; (4) allowing Pampu's counsel to cross-examine Ms. Wingo regarding additional instances of her intoxication following Pampu's alleged sexual misconduct; and (5) denying their new trial motions based on the excessiveness of the damages awards. Respondent-Appellant Colin J. Gahagan challenges the circuit court's (1) rejection of his collateral estoppel defense, (2) submission of the defamation claim against him to the jury when there was no evidence of his negligence, and (3) affirmation of the punitive damages awards against him in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of the factors set forth in section 15-32-520(E) of the South Carolina Code.
South Carolina Court of Appeals Courtroom II
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.
The next case for oral argument is to be announced.