S.C. Legal News
Same-Sex Couple Filed a Federal Lawsuit to Attack South Carolina’s Defense of Marriage Act and Ban on Gay Marriage
The State reports that a same-sex couple filed a federal lawsuit challenging the 1996 law and the constitutional amendment that ban same-sex marriages in South Carolina. The couple was married in Washington, D.C. in 2012, but currently resides in Lexington County.
According to the State, the “lawsuit says the U.S. Constitution guarantees Bradacs and Goodwin the right to have the same rights as married heterosexual couples and that South Carolina’s exclusion of same-sex couples ‘adversely impacts the plaintiffs and same-sex couples across South Carolina by excluding them from the many legal protections available to spouses.’” Continue reading
According to CNN, Baby Veronica’s (or Baby Girl’s) Birth Father has turned himself in to authorities in Oklahoma. On Friday, a Charleston, South Carolina Family Court ordered the immediate return of Baby Veronica to her adoptive parents and the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office issued a warrant for Brown for interfering with custody. CNN reports that Brown turned himself in and posted bond.
For those unfamiliar with the case, you can refer to previous articles entitled: “SCOTUS Reverses South Carolina Supreme Court in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl” and “The Supreme Court Orders the Family Court to Finalize The Adoption of Baby Girl“
Tyrone Richardson of the Post and Courier reports today that the South Carolina Supreme Court is seeking more information before making a final decision in the Carnival Cruise Case.
Carnival Cruise Ships was sued in 2011 by the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of local residents of Charleston and preservationists. The Coastal Conservation League and the Historic Ansonborough Neighborhood Association are also parties to the suit. The complaint alleged that “large cruise ship operations in the heart of the city’s historic district run afoul of local zoning ordinances, snarl traffic by closing downtown streets, and violate state environmental permitting laws.” Continue reading
Noelle Phillips of The State reports today that Irmo bookie Brett Parker is appealing his murder convictions. Phillips reports that Parker will probably use a public defender for the appeal because he has no money left to pay for the appeal.
Brett Parker was sentenced to life for murdering his wife and Bryan Capnerhurst, his sports betting clerk. The solicitor argued that Parker killed his wife to collect life insurance to pay off betting debts. Parker argued that Capernerhurst had come to his house to rob him, and that after Capnerhurst killed Parker’s wife, he killed Capnerhurst in self-defense. The jury convicted Parker for murdering both Capnerhurst and his wife.
School of Arts’ Student Who Used the “N Word” on Twitter Has Filed a Lawsuit Against the Charleston County School District
Diette Casey of the Post and Courier reported today that Ashley Patrick, the senior at the School of the Arts who used the “n word” in a tweet to a black classmate, has filed suit against Charleston County School District. Patrick’s original punishment was that she was suspended for five days and could not attend prom, graduation, or partake in any extracurricular activities, and she also had to complete twenty hours community service and write a 500 word paper on racism and social media. Continue reading
As reported by Diette Casey in the Charleston Post and Courier, the Charleston County School District filed suit against Clemson and North Charleston in August 2012, arguing that it owns the 9.72 acre property on a former Navy base in North Charleston. The State, Clemson, and North Charleston argue that Clemson owns the property.
Diette Casey reports that the case is important because “[t]he district’s battle for ownership is a significant one because it could determine who receives a chunk of state money. In 2010, the state condemned about 70 acres on the former Navy base, seizing property including the former school campus to further the state’s plans to build a rail yard. The state must compensate anyone who owns or has an interest in condemned property.”
For further information on the arguments being made by the parties, refer to the article.