Clyde H. Hamilton

This case concerns a dispute over whether a business auto insurance policy issued by State Auto to Eastern Data Systems, Inc. (EDSI) provides coverage for an accident involving a van that EDSI had owned prior to its merger into EPS Network Solutions. After the 2003 merger, Network Solutions employee Burt Kennedy caused a multi-vehicle crash while driving the van on company business; Federal Insurance Company settled the resulting claims and sought contribution from State Auto, which denied coverage based on a non-assignment clause in its policy. The Fourth Circuit did not resolve the coverage issue on the merits. Instead, it certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia: whether West Virginia Code § 31D-11-1107(a)(3) voids the non-assignment clause on its face when two corporations merge, and, if not, whether the statute still applies if the insurable risks did not increase after the merger. The court explained that no controlling West Virginia precedent or statute answers these questions and that their resolution would determine the outcome of the appeal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a plaintiff who successfully challenged an adverse decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding Social Security benefits in federal court under the Social Security Act. After obtaining a reversal, the plaintiff applied for attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), which the Secretary did not contest on eligibility grounds. The court awarded $3,330 in fees for 33 hours and 18 minutes of work at a rate of $100 per hour plus $150.25 in costs, reasoning that the EAJA's $75 statutory cap could be adjusted for cost-of-living increases and limited to the prevailing market rate.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

In Portee v. Tollison, two state prisoners housed in South Carolina's Central Correctional Institution brought a § 1983 action claiming that prison policies violated their Eighth Amendment rights by integrating inmates with AIDS into the general population, allowing shared utensils and food service, and failing to test all prisoners for HIV. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that prison officials' policies were reasonable under prevailing medical consensus that AIDS is not transmitted by casual contact, that there was no evidence of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and that claims for damages were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity along with qualified immunity. Judicial restraint was appropriate given the deference owed to prison administrators on matters of institutional safety and health policy.

civil rightscriminal lawhealthcare

The case involved a service station operator, Loren Miller, who sued his fuel supplier, W.H. Bristow, Inc., after Bristow terminated their sublease and supply agreement with 30 days' notice following the property owner's cancellation of the underlying lease. Miller claimed violations of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) requiring 90 days' notice for franchise terminations, along with negligence, breach of contract, and antitrust claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the PMPA did not apply because the consignment arrangement did not qualify Miller as a retailer or distributor under the statute's definitions, as Bristow retained title, set prices, and bore most risks. The court also found no triable issues on the other causes of action.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case was a declaratory judgment action in which plaintiff Laverne Powers sought a ruling that the United States, through the Farmers Home Administration, held no security interest in his 1989 crops. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted judgment to the defendant. It held that a security interest had attached under South Carolina’s UCC because the 1985 security agreement satisfied the agreement requirement, value was given through preexisting loan debts and their reamortization, and the debtor obtained rights in the crops upon planting. The court further found that the seven-year limitation on after-acquired crop interests did not bar attachment, as the operative agreement was executed in 1985.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved the U.S. government's effort to recover educational costs from former Air Force Academy cadet James F. McCrackin after he resigned in 1985 amid allegations of misconduct, including marijuana use and honor code violations. McCrackin had signed agreements obligating him to either complete an active duty service commitment or reimburse the costs of his education. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, ordering reimbursement of approximately $41,000. It reasoned that the plain language of the agreements and federal statute allowed the Secretary of the Air Force to require repayment when the cadet did not fulfill active duty, and found no waiver, estoppel, or other defenses applicable.

federal powerprocedure

The case concerned a contract dispute in which Atlantic Shores Resort Joint Venture hired architects Martin to design a hotel and later alleged that design flaws in the HVAC system caused mold and mildew problems; after separate arbitrations, a panel awarded Martin $63,294 in unpaid fees and denied Atlantic Shores any recovery. Atlantic Shores asked the federal district court to vacate the award, claiming the arbitrators showed partiality, exceeded their powers, refused material evidence, and manifestly disregarded the law. The court confirmed the award, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act sharply limits judicial review and that Atlantic Shores had not established any statutory or common-law ground for vacating the decision.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a tenant who was assaulted in her apartment by an intruder who entered through a sliding glass door after using a ladder left unsecured nearby; she sued the apartment management company for negligence in various security-related failures and for fraud based on statements about the complex's safety. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the fraud claim and on all but one of the negligence claims, finding that the lease's exculpatory clause did not bar liability, that landlords generally owe no duty to protect against third-party criminal acts under South Carolina law, and that statements about safety were not specific factual representations. However, the court allowed the negligence claim to proceed based on the affirmative act of leaving the ladder unsecured without due care, as that fell within an exception to the general no-duty rule for landlords. The decision rested on strict construction of exculpatory clauses, analysis of proximate cause and superseding criminal acts, and requirements for actionable fraud.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

This case involves Allstate Insurance seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court that it has no duty to defend or indemnify its policyholders in a state court personal injury lawsuit stemming from a child's injury on a motorbike off the insured property. The policy excludes coverage for recreational motorbikes owned by the insured and used away from the premises, though the underlying complaint alleges negligence on the premises. The court declined to resolve the coverage dispute, reasoning that it raises unsettled questions of South Carolina insurance law better addressed in state court, and exercised its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to abstain.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Roger Dean Bellamy sued state agencies and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging due process violations stemming from his federal indictment and guilty plea for interstate shellfish sales violations, followed by state arrests and charges (most of which ended in dismissal or acquittal) for unlicensed sales and improper tagging. He also asserted pendent state claims for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and libel. The court granted the state defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that state agencies and officials acting in their official capacities are not "persons" under § 1983 per Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, that Eleventh Amendment immunity bars the federal claims in federal court, and that the pendent claims should be dismissed without prejudice since the federal claim was resolved before trial. The court rejected arguments that prior removal of a related state suit or the South Carolina Tort Claims Act waived immunity.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involves parents suing the City of Myrtle Beach and its police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with related state claims, after their son was arrested and detained for about four hours on charges of public intoxication and disorderly conduct. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated their constitutionally protected liberty interest in the companionship and association with their son. The court treated the defendants' summary judgment motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismissed the action. The core reasoning was that the parents lacked a cognizable constitutional liberty interest under § 1983 in the companionship of their adult son, that the city could not be held liable under respondeat superior, and that collateral estoppel from the son's prior lawsuit barred relitigation of the issues.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved utility companies owning most of the Catawba Nuclear Power Station challenging the constitutionality of a South Carolina statute and York County ordinance that created the Western York County Water and Sewer District, a special tax district financed by general obligation bonds and service fees rather than millage. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' due process and takings clauses, as well as the equal protection clause's one-person-one-vote principle, claiming unfair tax burdens on their property without corresponding benefits. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court examined standing, third-party rights, and whether the improvements qualified as public or special, concluding that plaintiffs lacked prudential standing to raise certain equal protection claims on behalf of electors and that any tax allocation needed only to be fair and reasonable overall.

propertycivil rightstaxesprocedure

In Collins & Aikman Corp. v. Carpostan Industries, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that the defendant infringed its copyright by producing an upholstery fabric design called SWANKY that was substantially similar to the plaintiff's APPARITION design. The court, after consolidating the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on liability, found that the plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant copied the APPARITION design. The decision was based on evidence that both designs independently aimed to replicate a hand-woven silk suiting look, significant dissimilarities between the fabrics, the defendant's designer's credible testimony of independent creation using his prior design and customer specifications, and the fact that the defendant's version more successfully achieved the desired appearance.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This diversity case involved a breach of contract and warranty dispute between South Carolina plaintiff Wells American and Illinois defendant Sunshine Electronics over specially manufactured circuit boards. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). The court granted the motion, holding that while the South Carolina long-arm statute provided a statutory basis for jurisdiction, the exercise of personal jurisdiction would violate Fourteenth Amendment due process. The core reasoning was that the defendant lacked minimum contacts with South Carolina because it never solicited business there, and all contacts resulted solely from the plaintiff's unilateral actions in placing unsolicited orders.

procedure

The case involves two actions originally filed in South Carolina state court by Toyota of Florence and Richard Beasley against nineteen defendants, alleging fraud, RICO violations, civil conspiracy, and other claims arising from an alleged scheme to financially ruin the plaintiffs, with breach of contract claims directed only at defendant Southeast Toyota Distributors. The cases were removed to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) and (c), prompting motions to remand by the plaintiffs on grounds including incomplete joinder in the removal petition and lack of separate and independent claims. The court held that it must evaluate its jurisdiction sua sponte regardless of any party concessions, that the removing defendants bear the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, and that removal statutes must be strictly construed with doubts resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction. Core reasoning centered on the principle that federal jurisdiction cannot be created by litigant agreement and that claims must meet the statutory criteria for removal under § 1441(c) without regard to state law characterizations.

procedure

In Roller v. McKellar, a state prisoner filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions for voluntary manslaughter and grand larceny, raising claims of insufficient evidence on the larceny charge, erroneous admission of gruesome photographs, involuntary inculpatory statements, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court granted the respondents' motion for summary judgment and denied the petition, agreeing with the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after reviewing the record and applicable law. The court found that several claims were procedurally defaulted under state contemporaneous-objection rules without a showing of cause and prejudice, that the evidence and confessions satisfied constitutional standards, and that the ineffective assistance claims were either unexhausted or meritless. It also noted that the state had waived exhaustion objections.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an amateur radio operator who was denied a special exception by the City of Columbia Zoning Board of Adjustment to install an antenna tower exceeding the 17-foot height limit in the local zoning ordinance. The plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other claims, arguing that the ordinance was preempted by FCC regulations (PRB-1), violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and imposed unconstitutional burdens on interstate commerce and property rights. The court granted partial summary judgment, holding that the zoning provisions were preempted under the Supremacy Clause to the extent they failed to reasonably accommodate federal interests in amateur radio communications, and directed the ZBA to reconsider the request using the PRB-1 standard within 60 days; the motion was denied as to other claims. The decision rested on the principle that conflicting local regulations must yield when they do not adequately balance against federal preemption in this area.

federal powerproperty

In Chiles v. Crooks, plaintiffs alleged that a private security guard employed by Wells Fargo falsely reported to police that they had tampered with a car in a parking lot, leading to their arrests on state charges that were later dropped; they brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 asserting violations of constitutional rights and racial discrimination, plus pendent state claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. It reasoned that the guard's actions did not constitute state action under the Fourteenth Amendment or qualify as acting under color of state law for § 1983 purposes, as he was a private employee without police authority, and the § 1981 claim similarly lacked a sufficient basis tied to state conduct. The court then dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice to allow resolution in state court.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case is an in rem civil forfeiture action in which the United States sought to forfeit a lot and dental office building in Aiken, South Carolina, under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) after the owner, Dr. H. Allan Schifferli, was convicted of multiple federal drug-distribution offenses. The government moved for summary judgment on the ground that the property had been regularly used to facilitate the crimes between 1984 and 1985; the claimants argued the property was only incidental to the offenses. The court held that certified transcripts from the criminal trial could be considered on summary judgment and established the required substantial connection between the property and the illegal activity. It therefore granted the government’s motion, forfeited the property to the United States, and ruled that the other claimants lacked standing because their interests arose after title had vested in the government under § 881(h).

criminal lawpropertyfederal power

This case involves a police officer terminated from the Myrtle Beach Police Department after refusing probation tied to his objections to a ticket-writing quota and a requested transfer due to burnout. He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process rights in his termination, plus state-law claims for civil conspiracy and wrongful discharge. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the federal claim and dismissed the pendent state claims without prejudice. It reasoned that the plaintiff lacked a protected property interest in continued employment because South Carolina municipal employees under the Council-Manager form of government serve at will, with the city manager holding authority to remove appointive officers or employees for good cause.

labor & employmentcivil rights