January 29, 2014 South Carolina Court of Appeals published opinions

Sullivan v State 

Sullivan sought post conviction relief arguing his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to request a jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter. The circuit court denied his petition and the panel affirmed. It held that because Sullivan admitted he intentionally discharged the gun used in the homicide, he was not entitled to an involuntary manslaughter jury instruction. Thus, there could be no ineffective assistance because there was no prejudice.

Carter v Verizon Wireless 

Cater sought increased workers compensation benefits for her deteriorating knee. The commission denied her request and placed additional restrictions on her future benefits. The circuit curt reversed the commission order. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part. It reversed the change in circumstances finding holding that the deterioration in the knee was a natural progression of preexisting joint disease and thus not a change in condition. It affirmed as to the scope of future benefits as the commission restriction of future treatment to medication improperly deprived Carter of treatment which could shorten her period of disability.

Kinard v Richardson 

Kinard sued for an injunction prohibiting Richardson from leasing land adjoining his parcel to a third party operating a horse grazing business. The master in equity ruled the Richardson’s property was not subject to the subdivisions’ residential only restrictions, Kinard could not enforce those restrictions in any event and the horse grazing was allowed. The panel reversed and remanded. It held the Richardson property was subject to the original restrictions because the original deed provided for additional land being added to the subdivision and the deed for the Richardson property subjected the property to the restrictive covenants. It held Kinard could bring suit as the convents were for his benefit. It held the purported amendment allowing the horse grazing was invalid as the other parcel owners did not approve it as required by the original declaration. It next held that horse grazing was not a residential use for purposes of the restrictive covenant and thus violates the covenant. Finally, the panel balanced the equities including Richardson’s notice of the restrictive covenant and the negative effects on Kinard’s enjoyment of his property supported issuing the injunction. The case was therefore remanded for the issuance of the injunction.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s