Lane was convicted of first degree burglary. The panel reversed holding the evidence presented (that a car was seen at the house burglarized, that Lane drove a similar car on the day of the burglary, that a paper from a government office visited by Lane was found at the house and that Lane asked someone to lie for him) at most raised a suspicion of guilt and was therefore insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Hartzell filed a claim for workers compensation based on a back injury. The commission awarded benefits. The panel reversed. It first held that Palmetto was a covered employer because it employed four persons during the relevant time period of January to March 2009, they worked with some consistency based on the amount of cars needing to be repaired. The panel reversed, however, because Hartzell presented no evidence that he gave Palmetto notice of his injury. Instead, he merely told his supervisor that his back was sore which is inadequate to provide notice of a claim.