May 28, 2014 South Carolina Court of Appeals published opinions

Be Mi, Inc. v South Carolina Department of Revenue and St. Clements Homeowners Association


Association objected to Be Mi’s application for a liquor license. The administrative law judge found that Be Mi had the required 40 seats and otherwise met the criteria and ordered the grant of the license. The panel affirmed. It held that the testimony of the restaurant operator and state investigators provided substantial evidence to support the finding that Be Mi had the required 40 seats. It also held that the six chairs at the bar met the statutory requirement of being at a “table” as it was a flat surface used to eat off. The panel held Association’s challenge to the restaurant under the bylaws must be litigated in circuit court and the 20 years of operation was sufficient under regulations to establish the written contract requirement.


State v Bennett


Bennett challenged his burglary and other conviction arguing insufficient evidence. The panel reversed. It held that while Bennett’s fingerprints and blood found at the scene was evidence that he had been at the building, there was no evidence that placed him at the building at the time of the incident. Thus, the state failed to carry its burden and the conviction was reversed.


Morrow v South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce


Department denied Morrow’s application for unemployment benefits on the grounds that she did not have unrestricted expose tot eh labor market. The administrative law judge found there was no evidence to support this conclusion and ordered benefits. The panel, 2-1, affirmed. It held that Morrow’s searching for a new location for the restaurant she managed and her taking classes to earn her GED did not make her unavailable to work. It also held that she had no ownership in the business. Thus, she met the criteria and benefits were appropriate. The dissent argued the administrative law judge and majority engaged in prohibited fact finding and would have affirmed as there was sufficient evidence in the record to support denial.  

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: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s