Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The Town of Rockville is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Appellant Marc Merrill owns a historic home in Rockville. The property abuts a marsh. Appellant obtained a permit from the state Office of Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) to construct a dock and walkway on property he owned in Respondent Town of Rockville (Rockville). He then sought approval to construct the dock from the Rockville Design Review Board DRB which, pursuant to a newly adopted municipal ordinance, had to approve the construction of any dock or walkway already permitted by OCRM. The DRB declined to approve construction, and Appellant unsuccessfully appealed to circuit court. Although appellants raised numerous issues on appeal, the Supreme Court addressed only whether the evidence presented to the DRB was sufficient to support its conclusion that Appellant's proposed dock and walkway would impede a scenic rural view. Upon consideration of the DRB's review of Appellant's dock proposal, the Court found that there was simply nothing in the record to support the DRB's finding. Accordingly, the Court reversed both the DRB's and circuit court's decisions in this case, and remanded it for further proceedings.

Appellant Friends of the Hunley, Inc., (Friends) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to the recovery and conservation of the H.L. Hunley Confederate submarine. In 2001, Petitioner Edward Sloan submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Friends seeking a list of documents pertaining to Friends' corporate structure and legal relationship with the Hunley Commission, a state agency. Friends denied that it was subject to FOIA and declined to produce the documents. In 2001, Mr. Sloan filed a complaint seeking production of the documents based on Friends' status either as a public body under FOIA or as an alter ego of the Hunley Commission. Approximately one month later, Friends fully complied with Mr. Sloan's document request, but stated that it was not tendering the documents "due to any concession that [Friends] is subject to the Freedom of Information Act," but "in the spirit of cooperation." Following a series of cross-motions, the trial court granted Friends' motion for summary judgment, finding Mr. Sloan lacked standing to maintain the action and that there was no controversy since Friends had produced the very documents sought in the complaint. Following a Supreme Court decision in the case, Mr. Sloan moved in the trial court for an award of attorney's fees under FOIA. In 2009, the trial court granted Mr. Sloan's motion and awarded attorney's fees to include those incurred from the beginning of the litigation up to the granting of the motion. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Friends challenged the FOIA-based attorney's fee award to Sloan. Specifically, Friends argued Sloan was not a prevailing party and, in any event, was not entitled to relief beyond the date the requested documents were produced. Upon consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court concluded that Mr. Sloan was the "prevailing party" and the trial court properly awarded him attorney's fees. However, in view of the law of this case in from the earlier decision, the Court found that the trial court erred in awarding fees beyond the time that Friends provided the requested information to Mr. Sloan. The Court partly affirmed, and partly reversed the lower court decisions and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Appellants Larry and Jeannie Boiter were injured when the motorcycle they were riding collided with a car driven by Nancy Kochenower at an intersection. The red light signal bulb for the road Ms. Kochenower was traveling on had burned out earlier that day. The Boiters suffered significant injuries. They settled with Ms. Kochenhower for her policy limits and sued Respondents the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the South Carolina Department of Public Safety (SCDPS), alleging negligence in their failure to prevent the accident. At trial, a jury found in favor of the Boiters and awarded them a total of $1.875 million. Respondents filed motions for "judgment notwithstanding the verdict," for a new trial, and to reduce the amount of the verdict pursuant to the state's Tort Claims Act. In response, the Boiters filed a motion to challenge the constitutionality of the two-tier cap in the Tort Claims Act. In the alternative, the Boiters argued that Respondents' negligence constituted two separate occurrences of negligence under the Act (one for each Appellant), and as such, were entitled to separate damages awards. The circuit court denied all parties' motions, and found that there was only one occurrence of negligence. The court reduced the damages to $600,000. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed part and reversed part of the trial court's order. The Court found that the two-tier statutory cap on damages is constitutional, but that more than one occurrence of negligence occurred at the time of the accident. The Court remanded the case for reconsideration of the damages award.

This case involves the State's "working retiree program," and the propriety of its withholding retirement contributions from eligible members who returned to work with the state prior to July, 2005. Before that time, the program allowed employees to retire, then after a break, be re-hired and receive retirement benefits and a salary of up to $50,000 per year without having to pay into the pension plan. The State was ordered to refund any contributions made since July, 2005 by program members. In 2005, the State Retirement System Preservation and Investment Reform Act amended the program to require retired members pay the employee contribution as if they were active members but without accruing additional service credit. The State appealed the circuit court's order to refund the contributions. The retirees challenged the change in the program, arguing that it was unlawful for the State to change the terms of the working retiree program after the retirees "irreversibly retired" with the understanding that contributions to the pension plan would not be required. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and legal authority, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's holding with respect to the State's return of contributions since 2005. The Court found that the Legislature enabled the State to take the contributions when it amended the program by Act in 2005. The Court dismissed the Retirees' challenge to the State Retirement System Preservation and Investment Reform Act, finding no merit in their argument.

The Supreme Court reversed the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Administrative Law Court's (ALC) decision against Appellant Peter Brown. Appellant is a Medicaid recipient who is disabled and mentally retarded. Appellant qualified for a program that allowed him to move from an intermediate care facility and into a supervised living facility for people with mental disabilities. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services waived the statutory requirement that individuals with mental disabilities live in an institution to have Medicaid pay for the associated expenses in the supervised living arrangement. In 2005, the center informed Appellant that it would terminate Appellant's 12-hour weekly one-on-one service that had allowed him to remain at the center and out of the institution. Appellant appealed to the DHHS; the hearing officer found that the one-on-one service was not eligible for Medicaid under the waiver because Appellant could not prove the service was necessary to keep him out of the institution. Appellant appealed to the ALC, and the ALC affirmed the DHHS hearing officer's decision. The Supreme Court, in review of the case found that the hearing officer did not have jurisdiction to hear Appellant's appeal, and found the ALC applied an incorrect legal standard. Accordingly, the Court vacated the ALC's order and remanded the case back to DHHS for an additional hearing.