In Gibbs v. State, the Court affirmed the post-conviction relief (PCR) court’s dismissal of Gibbs’ PCR application, finding Gibbs was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to object to evidence of witness intimidation.
In Hueble v. SCDNR, the Court examined the issue of whether a plaintiff who obtained a Rule 68, SCRCP judgment in his favor was a prevailing party within the meaning of, 42 U.S.C.§ 1988 (2006), and therefore entitled to attorneys’ fees. In this case, the Court reversed the appellate court’s decision and found Hueble was a prevailing party and special circumstances do not exist to deny attorney’s fees. The Court remands the issue to the trial court to consider the award of attorneys’ fees.
Justice Kittredge dissented in a separate opinion.