Court Rulings

Motion for reconsideration granted and decision in Key Realty, Ltd. v. Hall, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1237, 2021-Ohio-26 vacated where majority decision made obvious errors of fact and law. Consideration was exchanged for noncompete agreement where at-will independent contractor continued to perform services for employer after execution of agreement. Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment for independent contractor on employer's breach-of-contract, business tort, and criminal claims.

Mediation - Order Appointing Mediator - Andres Nicholas Haladay

In this declaratory judgment action, Nationwide relies on flight-from-law enforcement and felony step-down provisions in an automobile liability insurance policy to limit its coverage to the statutory mandatory minimum. Following a bench trial and after issuance of this Court's opinion in Williams v. Government Employees Insurance Co. (GEICO), 409 S.C. 586, 762 S.E.2d 705 (2014), the circuit court held the step-down provisions were void pursuant to Section 38-77-142(C) of the South Carolina Code (2015). The court of appeals reversed. We now reverse the court of appeals and hold that section 38-77-142(C) renders Nationwide's attempt to limit the contracted-for liability insurance to the mandatory minimum void.

This is an appeal of a decision denying workers' compensation benefits. The claimant argues the commission erred in ruling he elected to be excluded from the policy he purchased for his sole proprietorship. He also appeals the Commission's denial of his alternative claims that he was a direct employee or a statutory employee of a roofing company with which he had a years-long continuous relationship. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Defendant appeals the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to the plaintiff in this breach of contract case. Because Appellant failed to comply with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, we dismiss this appeal and remand to the trial court for a determination of the plaintiff's damages incurred in defending a frivolous appeal.

The petitioner, who previously had been convicted of the crimes of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child and was found to be in violation of his probation, sought, as a self-represented party, a second writ of habeas corpus using a state supplied form. Thereafter, the habeas court granted the petitioner's request the appointment of counsel, and counsel entered an appearance on the petitioner's behalf. The respondent Commissioner of Correction, pursuant to statute (§ 52- 470 (d) and (e)), filed a request for an order to show cause why the second petition should be permitted to proceed when the petitioner had filed it more than two years after the judgment on his prior petition was final. The petitioner filed an objection in which he argued that an order to show cause was premature because he needed additional time to determine whether he met the requirements of § 52-470 (d) (3) or if good cause existed for the delay and that the court should wait until an amended petition is filed before deciding whether to issue an order. In addition, the petitioner's counsel represented that she needed additional time to fully investigate and to respond to the respondent's request. The respondent filed a reply arguing that the petitioner's counsel had eight months to determine the cause for the petitioner's delay in filing the petition and requesting that the court issue the order to show cause. Thereafter, the court held an evidentiary hearing during which the peti- tioner's counsel did not attempt to demonstrate that good cause for the delay in filing the petition existed or to argue that she needed additional time to inquire into the cause of the delay but, rather, argued that the court should deny the respondent's request because she needed additional time to inquire into a potential actual innocence claim and to file an amended petition on the petitioner's behalf. The court dis- missed the petition, and the petitioner filed a motion for reconsiderati