Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned, and was called to order by the ACTING PRESIDENT, Senator COURSON.

Date Draft Report Issued:   Thursday, May 6, 2004
Date and Time Final Report Issued:   12:00 noon on Tuesday, May 11, 2004

Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, May 11, 2004 at 12:00 noon.

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. This report details the reasons for the Commission's findings, as well as each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission operates under the law which went into effect July 1, 1997, and which dramatically changed the powers and duties of the Commission. One component of this law is that the Commission's finding of "qualified" or "not qualified" is binding on the General Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a report as possible.

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is composed of ten members, four of whom are non-legislators. The Commission has continued the more in-depth screening format started in 1997. The Commission has asked candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on the court to which they seek election. These questions were posed in an effort to provide members of the General Assembly with more information about candidates and the candidates' thought processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission has also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's

The Commission also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. Since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people's personal and professional lives, the Commission believes that all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state's judges. It was this desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees, composed of people from a broad range of experiences (doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and advocates for various organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds), were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted. Summaries of these reports have also been included in the Commission's report for your review.

The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications; ethical fitness; professional and academic ability; character; reputation; physical health; mental health; and judicial temperament. The Commission's investigation includes the following:
(1)   survey of the bench and bar;
(2)   SLED and FBI investigation;
(3)   credit investigation;
(4)   grievance investigation;
(5)   study of application materials;
(6)   verification of ethics compliance;

While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state's judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate's violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission's nine evaluative criteria that would impact on a candidate's fitness for judicial service.

The Commission expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.

Routine questions related to compliance with ethical Canons governing ethics and financial interests are now administered through a written questionnaire mailed to candidates and completed by them in advance of each candidate's staff interview. These issues were no longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a concern or question was raised during the investigation of the candidate. The necessary public record of a candidate's pledge to uphold the canons, etc. is his completed and sworn questionnaire.

Written examinations of the candidates' knowledge of judicial practice and procedure were given at the time of candidate interviews with staff and graded on a "blind" basis by a panel of four persons designated by the Chairman. In assessing each candidate's

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision.

This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Armstrong meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Armstrong was born on August 12, 1956. He is 47 years old and a resident of Seabrook, South Carolina. Judge Armstrong provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Armstrong.
Judge Armstrong demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Armstrong reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Armstrong testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Armstrong testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Armstrong to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Armstrong described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Each year I have exceeded the required number of CLE hours by attending the Family Court Judges Conference; Family Law Midyear Meeting; Bench/Bar Family Law Seminar; Annual Judicial Conference; and the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention.

(b)   Upon election to the Family Court in 1998, I attended the Orientation School for New Family and Circuit Court Judges. Also, in 1998, I attended the Seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative Purposes.

(c)   In addition, I completed a one-week course sponsored by the National Judicial College on current issues in family law. Last April I was one of 25 Judges selected to attend the National Judicial College to study remedies for international kidnapping pursuant to the Hague Convention.

(d)   I also attended a seminar on ethics and professionalism in 2002. The title of this seminar was, Enhancing the Accountability of Lawyers for Unprofessional Conduct."
Judge Armstrong reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   November 1998, Bench/Bar CLE. I gave a presentation on issues in juvenile crime.

(b)   October 1998, Annual Solicitor's Convention. My topic covered issues in juvenile crime.

(c)   October 2001, Annual Solicitor's Convention. I spoke on issues relating to competency.

(d)   December 2001, South Carolina Bar/CLE, in Columbia. I spoke on the Family Court cases that arose during the year in a seminar that focused on state case law and developments.

(e)   January 2003, GAL Certification Training. This seminar was a two-day training session for certification under the new GAL statute. I spoke on the second day on report writing, focusing on hearsay and the rules of evidence."
Judge Armstrong reported that he has published the following:
"'Up From the Lowcountry, Who is this New Kid on the Block?' Fall Issue, 1983, South Carolina Trial Lawyers Bulletin. This was an article on the Honorable William T. Howell after his election as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Armstrong did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Armstrong did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Armstrong has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Armstrong was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Armstrong reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Armstrong provided the following regarding prior public offices held:
"Assistant Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, appointed 1985 - 1990;
Deputy Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, appointed 1990 - 1995."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Armstrong appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Armstrong appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Armstrong was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.
Judge Armstrong provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Law Clerk, The Honorable William T. Howell, 1982 - 1983;

"(a)   Hughes v. Hughes, 95-DR-18-1522, 95-DR-18-1526. I represented the wife in a divorce action in Dorchester County. Issues involved adultery, physical cruelty, and custody.

(b)   Broxton v. Broxton, 95-DR-25-333. I represented the wife in a divorce action in Hampton County. She was granted a divorce on the ground of adultery.

(c)   Rivers v. Boyd, 96-CP-27-95. This was an action brought on behalf of the heirs of Mattie Rivers to quiet title to land in Jasper County.

(d)   State v. McConnell, 449 S.E.2d 778 (Ct. App. 1994). I was appointed special prosecutor in Dorchester County. The defendant was convicted of reckless homicide.

(e)   State v. Anderson, 91-GS-07-413, 91-GS-07-414. This case involved the prosecution of a defendant accused of sexually assaulting and kidnapping a deputy's wife. He was convicted."
The following is Judge Armstrong's account of a civil appeal he has personally handled:

"(a)   Jasper County Department of Social Services v. William Bostic and Jackie Bostic; In Re: Jack and Daniel Bostic, Juveniles under the age of seventeen; Ex Parte: Darrell Thomas Johnson, Jr.

I represented the Respondent, Jasper County DSS. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court in Memorandum Opinion, Number 92-MO-181, filed July 6, 1992."
Judge Armstrong provided the following list of significant orders:

"(a)   Beauchamp v. Beauchamp, 98-DR-32-693; 2000-UP-612. The issues in this case were custody, child support, attorney fees, GAL fees, and expert fees.

(b)   Bakala v. Bakala, 98-DR-07-687; 576 S.E.2d 156 (2003). The issues in this case were complicated by the fact that the defendant, Father, lives in the Czech Republic and chose not to attend the trial.

(c)   Brown v. Malloy, 99-DR-04-129, 546 S.E.2d 195 (Ct. App. 2001). The main issue in this case was notice to the biological father.

(d)   Arnal v. Arnal, 99-DR-07-1608. The issues were visitation, child support, equitable division, attorney and GAL fees.

(e)   Kaiser v. Kaiser, 01-DR-07-770. The main issue in this case was custody."
Judge Armstrong reported that he ran unsuccessfully for At-Large Seats in the Circuit Court in February 1994, February 1996, and May 1996.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Armstrong's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Armstrong was a well-qualified and highly-respected Family Court judge. The committee wholeheartedly approved of his candidacy for the Court of Appeals.
Judge Armstrong is not married. He has two stepchildren from a previous marriage.

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   Beaufort County Bar."
Judge Armstrong provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Member, Advisory Board, Hilton Head High School, Law and Justice Academy;

(b)   Member, The University Club; Former Member, Hampton County Country Club (the club went out of business)."
Judge Armstrong provided the following additional information:

"(a)   Member, The Chief Justice's Commission on the Profession;

(b)   Appointed by the Chief Justice to help implement Rule 608, SCACR in the 14th Judicial Circuit;

(c)   Past Regional Vice President, South Carolina Family Court Judges Association;
I believe that my varied legal experience as a circuit court judge's law clerk, public defender, prosecutor, and sole practitioner have given me a solid foundation for the Bench. I have called upon this experience daily to make decisions that have a profound effect on peoples' lives in my nearly six years on the Family Court.
I have been honored to serve on the Chief Justice's Commission on the Profession. In that capacity, I was selected as a member of the sub-committee to draft a Judge's Oath. I am currently on a sub-committee to develop an intern program for law students to learn from sitting judges.
I believe that this experience gives me the ability to make a positive contribution to the Court of Appeals."
Summary of Commission's Findings:
The Commission noted Judge Armstrong's professionalism and caring manner in the courtroom as well as his diverse legal experience. They found Judge Armstrong very personable. The Commission found Judge Robert S. Armstrong qualified for service on the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Buchan meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Buchan was born on September 26, 1952. She is 51 years old and a resident of Marion, South Carolina. Judge Buchan provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Buchan.
Judge Buchan demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Buchan reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Buchan testified she has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Buchan testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Buchan to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Buchan described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Various seminars offered through S.C. Bar CLE Division;

(b)   Scientific Evidence, University of Nevada at Reno, October 2000."

"(a)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, Computers in the Courtroom, 1993;

(b)   Speaker, Horry County Bar Family Court Annual Seminar, 1993;

(c)   Judge, various state and one national High School Mock Trial competitions;

(d)   Speaker and co-panelist, various state and local Guardian ad Litem seminars;

(e)   Bridge the Gap, 1996, Handling Family Court Appointments;

(f)   Chief Judges Seminar, 1997, Scheduling Problems and Conflicts;

(g)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, 1998, Race and Gender Sensitive Issues;

(h)   SCTLA Annual Convention, co-panelist, 1998, Valuation of a Professional Practice;

(i)   South Carolina Bar Winter Meeting, 1998, co-panelist, Joint Custody Considerations;

(j)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, 1999, Post-Trial Motions in Juvenile Hearings;

(k)   Children's Law Office, CLE, 2000, Handling Court Appointments in Family Court;

(l)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, 2000, general facilitator;

(m)   Tips From the Bench, III, CLE, 2002, Ethics in Family Court;

(n)   2004 Guardian ad Litem Training, CLE, 3/05/04: Role of the Guardian at Trial."
Judge Buchan reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Buchan did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Buchan did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Buchan has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Buchan was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.

"(a)   federal:   two civil cases;

(b)   state:     remaining cases."
Judge Buchan reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     14%;

(b)   criminal:   1%;

(c)   domestic:   85%."
Judge Buchan reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   jury:     less than one-half of a percentage point;

(b)   non-jury:   remainder."

"(a)   Prevatte v. Prevatte, 297 S.C. 345, 377 S.E.2d 114 (Ct. App. 1989): This case was handled from initial filing through an appellate remand and subsequent appeal. The issues included a novel issue regarding common-law marriage as well as circumstantial proof necessary for a fault-ground divorce and alimony.

(b)   Marion County DSS v. Rowell. I was appointed counsel for a mother of limited intelligence in this termination of parental rights action. The case was significant for me because the request for termination was denied and the mother received substantial assistance from DSS to improve her living skills.

(c)   Turner v. Turner. This case is significant because my client had suffered from residual difficulties and disabilities from a closed-head injury.

(d)   Riad v. Diamond. I was appointed as the Guardian ad Litem for three children by a judge in a neighboring county. This case was significant and difficult because custody was contested by extended family members after the children's mother was killed by the children's father, who was thereafter incarcerated.

(e)   Rabon v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, et al. This was a wrongful death action involving the parent of a young child who was killed when his dirt bike hit a guy wire."
The following is Judge Buchan's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   Prevatte v. Prevatte, 87-MO-08 (Ct. App. filed January 28, 1987);

(b)   Prevatte v. Prevatte, 297 S.C. 345, 277 S.E.2d 114 (Ct.App. 1989)."
Judge Buchan reported the following regarding prior judicial positions held:
"I was appointed and shortly thereafter elected as Family Court Judge, Seat 1, Twelfth Judicial Circuit in May, 1992; I have held that position since. Family Courts are of limited jurisdiction and handle matters of divorce, separate support and maintenance, support and property issues incidental to the marriage relationship, child custody and visitation, child support, paternity, adoptions, abuse and neglect of

"(a)   Poston v. Poston, 331 S.C. 106, 502 S.E.2d 86 (1998);

(b)   Dixon v. Dixon, 336 S.C. 260, 519 S.E.2d 357 (Ct.App. 1999);

(c)   Eisenmann v. Eisenmann. This case remains one of my most significant because it remains the most tragic I have heard. Two professionals, who were both such wonderful individuals, were involved in a contested divorce and custody action after one of them was involved in a horrible automobile accident which left that party with significant residual difficulties. Family members became involved after a series of miscommunications, and the divorce action resulted. Both of the parties and their children suffered immeasurably.

(d)   Jane Doe and John Doe v. SCDSS, et al. Because this was an adoption case, fictitious names are substituted for the Plaintiffs. The case is significant because the child being adopted had been the subject of numerous abuse and neglect hearings I was involved with. The child suffered such several physical disabilities and developmental delays that medical experts opined that she would not survive to see her first birthday. The love, faith and goodness of the Plaintiffs had truly miraculously transformed the child and the child's prognosis. This matter is significant because it was one of the few cases with a happy ending that I have had.

(e)   Holloran v. Holloran, 98-UP-533, filed November 30, 1998. This case is significant because Mr. Holloran continues to be very unhappy with the result."
Regarding prior unsuccessful candidacies, Judge Buchan reported:
"In my candidacy for the Court of Appeals, Seat 3 in 1999, I was found qualified but was not nominated. In 2000, I was a candidate for the Court of Appeals, Seat 6. Again, I was found qualified but was not nominated. As a candidate for the Court of Appeals, Seat 3 in 2003, I was found qualified and was nominated. I withdrew prior to the election because of my husband's medical difficulties."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Buchan's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   South Carolina Family Court Judges Association;

(c)   SCWLA;

(d)   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges."
Judge Buchan provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Marion Presbyterian Church: former deacon and elder; Sunday school teacher; Endowment Committee;

(b)   Pee Dee Academy Parent-Teacher Association;

(c)   Friends of the Marion County Museum."
Judge Buchan further provided: "I have both the ability and the desire to perform as an appellate judge. I have a background in English and literature. The requisite reading would be a joy, as would dealing with all areas of the law. I am logical and blessed with common sense. I consider myself to be a team player. My contact with juries has been non-existent for the past twelve years, but I believe independent study would solve this issue."
Summary of Commission's Findings:
The Commission was very favorably impressed with Judge Buchan's gracious demeanor, judicial temperament, and impressive legal knowledge. They noted that she enjoys wide respect within the legal community. The Commission found Judge Mary E. Buchan qualified and nominated her for election to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Lee testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Lee to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Lee described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   1999 - carried over credits from 1998;

Annual Criminal Law Update (7.0);

Circuit Judges Orientation School (17.25);

S.C. Judicial Conference (7.25);

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference (6.0);
(b)   2000 - carried over credits from 1999;

National Judicial College - General Jurisdiction (58.08);

Annual Criminal Law Update (6.0);

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference (6.5);

S.C. Judicial Conference (7.75);
(c)   2001 - carried over credits from 2000;

Annual Criminal law Update (6.0);

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference (7.5);

S.C. Judicial Conference (8.25);
(d)   2002 - carried over credits from 2001;

Annual Criminal Law Update (6.0);

S.C. Women Lawyers CLE (6.0);

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference (7.75);

S.C. Judicial Conference (8.0);
(e)   2003 - carried over credits from 2002;

Annual Criminal Law Update (3.0);

Civil Law Update (3.0);

Legal Jeopardy - John Belton O'Neill Inn of Court (1.0);

Class Actions - John Belton O'Neill Inn of Court (1.0);

Women Lawyers in the New Millenium (4.0);

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference (7.25);

S.C. Judicial Conference (7.5)."
Judge Lee reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   JCLE - Basic Elements of Proof in the Family Court (August 1985)

Topic: Settling the Family Court Record on Appeal;
(b)   Basic Federal Court Practice (September 1985)

Topic: Pretrial Orders, Sanctions & Local Rules;
(c)   Drafting Criminal Laws under the Sentencing Classification Act (November 1993);
(d)   Bridge the Gap (May 1996, March 1997, May 1997, March 1998, May 1998)

Topic: Practice Tips for the Administrative Law Judge Division;
(e)   1996 That Was the Year That Was (January 1997)

Topic: 1996 Update for the Administrative Law Judge Division;
(f)   Rules, Rules, Rules: S.C. Practice & Procedure Update (March 1998)

Topic: Rules of the Administrative Law Judge Division;

"(a)   federal:   90% of the cases I handled in private practice were in federal court (1984-89);

(b)   state:     10% of the cases I handled in private practice were in state court (1984-89)."
Judge Lee reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     (1984-89) 80%;

(b)   criminal:   (1984-89) 20%;
(c)   domestic:   handled 2-3 court appointed cases between 1984-89."
Judge Lee reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:
"(a)   jury:   (1984-89) 10% a majority of cases were resolved on motions or through settlement.
(b)   non-jury:
Judge Lee provided that prior to election to the bench she most often served as associate counsel on cases that were actually tried.
The following is Judge Lee's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Atkinson v. Citicorp Acceptance Co. (Federal district court). Case decided on summary judgment motion involving the Fair Debt Collection Act, then a new federal statute;

(b)   McClain v. Westinghouse (Federal district court). Employment law case involving sex discrimination, sex harassment, equal pay, as well as other employment claims. Case decided on summary judgment;

(c)   State of South Carolina v. Norris Stroman (state criminal case). Defendant (with limited intelligence) charged with murder and allegedly confessed. Jury acquitted;

(d)   Valerie Smith v. Kroger (Federal district court). Either a slander or malicious prosecution case resulting from shoplifting."
The following is Judge Lee's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   Purdie v. Smalls, 293 S.C. 216, 359 S.E.2d 306 (Ct. App. 1987);

(b)   Hooten v. Carolina Treatment Center, Inc., 200 S.C. 37, 386 S.E.2d 287 (Ct. App. 1989) was not the lead attorney;

(c)   Condon v. Best View Cablevision, Inc., 292 S.C. 117, 355 S.E.2d 7 (Ct. App. 1987) was not the lead attorney;

(d)   Davis v. U.S. Steel Corp., 779 F.2d 209 (4th Cir. 1985) on brief."
Judge Lee reported the following regarding criminal appeals: "I did not handle any criminal appeals while in private practice. However, as a circuit court judge I have presided over appeals from magistrate and municipal court cases involving criminal matters."
Judge Lee reported the following regarding prior judicial offices held:
"Elected by the General Assembly in February 1994 to the office of Administrative Law Judge which is a quasi-judicial function within the executive branch of government. Jurisdiction is limited to fact finding within the context of administrative hearings involving taxes, licensing, permitting and rate-making. Act as an appellate body in matters involving occupational licensing and foster care licensing, among others. Conduct public hearings and decide the reasonableness and need for regulations promulgated by certain state agencies.
Elected by the General Assembly in February 1999 to Circuit Court. Re-elected in February 2002. Court of general jurisdiction covering civil and criminal matters. Appellate jurisdiction over administrative agencies

"(a)   Ward v. South Carolina, 98-CP-40-4069, reversed 538 S.E.2d 245 (S.C. 2000). Ward, a federal retiree, filed suit against the state seeking to have declared unconstitutional statutes enacted providing state retirees a "rebate" on income taxes in response to Davis v. Michigan. The State filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit which was granted on the basis that Ward failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before the Department of Revenue and the Administrative Law Judge Division. The Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that exhaustion of remedies was not required when the sole issue for determination involves the constitutionality of a statute. Neither the Department of Revenue nor the ALJD has jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of a statute.

(b)   Harmon v. American Amusement Co., et al., 97-CP-40-2799. Harmon filed suit seeking damages when the video gaming machine he was playing malfunctioned and accrued credits in excess of $5 Million. His claims involved breach of contract, fraud and deceit, conversion, civil conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair trade practices. Each legal theory was considered and dismissed.

(c)   Sloan v. Greenville County, et al., 99-CP-23-4464. Mr. Sloan sued Greenville County seeking to declare its action unlawful in connection with the procured construction of the Family Court building expansion. The County sought dismissal of the lawsuit claiming Mr. Sloan did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. The decision found that Sloan had standing to bring the action against the County as a taxpayer when the legislative acts sought to be enjoined are unlawful.

(d)   Jordan, et al. v. Holt, et al., 96-CP-26-3792. This was a non-jury trial in which partners in a failed restaurant venture sought dissolution of the partnership, an accounting of the assets, and claims for damages from the operation of the business. The trial lasted one week and involved voluminous documents, checks, records, and photographs.

(e)   Kenneth Curtis v. State of South Carolina (Greenville County). Mr. Curtis sought to enjoin the state from enforcing a

Judge Lee reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
"Candidate for Circuit Court At Large Seat 10. Election in April 1997, withdrew two days before the election. Seat won by James R. Barber III.
Also candidate for Circuit Court At Large, Seats 1 and 7. Withdrew candidacy when Commission nominated me as a candidate for Seat 11 in February 1999.
Candidate for Court of Appeals, Seat 6 (formerly held by Judge Cureton) and Court of Appeals, Seat 3 (formerly held by Judge Shuler). Elections took place in 2003. In both cases, I was found qualified by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission but I was not nominated."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Lee's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Lee was a qualified and highly-regarded judge who would ably serve on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Lee is married to Kenzil Franklin Summey. She has two children.
Judge Lee reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   American Bar Association (1985-90);

(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(c)   South Carolina Women Lawyers Association;

(d)   Richland County Bar Association;

(e)   Young Lawyers Division representative to the Committee on Continuing Legal Education (July 1987-June 1988);

(f)     Associate Commissioner, Board of Grievances and Discipline (1987-1989)."
Judge Lee provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Columbia Chapter of The Links, Inc. (1987-present); President 1994-98; Vice President 1993-94; Corresponding Secretary 1990-93;

(b)   Columbia Chapter, Jack and Jill of America, Inc. (1992-present); Parliamentarian 1995-97, 2001-2003, 2003-present;

(c)   St. Peter's Catholic School Board (1993-97); Chairperson 1995-96;

(d)   St. Peter's Catholic Church Parish Pastoral Council (1998-2001);

(e)   Honored by the S.C. Chapter of the National Association of Bench and Bar Spouses in April 1999;

(f)     Leadership South Carolina, Class of 1999."
Summary of Commission's Findings:
The Commission was favorably impressed with Judge Lee's valuable service on the bench as an Administrative Law Judge and then as a Circuit Court Judge. They noted her patient demeanor and professionalism. The Commission found Judge Alison Renee Lee qualified for service on the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Manning meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Manning was born on December 7, 1950. He is 53 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Manning provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Manning.
Judge Manning demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Manning reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Manning testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Manning testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Manning to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Manning described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   01-22-99, 14th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(b)   05-12-99, Circuit Judges Conference;

(c)   06-28-99, Circuit Judges Orientation School;

(d)   08-19-99, Judicial Conference;

(e)   01-21-00, 15th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(f)   05-10-00, Circuit Judges Conference;

(g)   08-03-00, 2000 SCTLA Convention;

(h)   08-16-00, Annual Judicial Conference;

(i)     01-26-01, 16th Criminal Law Update;

(j)     05-09-01, Circuit Judges Conference;

(k)   07-02-01, 2001 Orientation School for New Judges;

(l)     08-23-01, Annual Judicial Conference;

(m)   01-25-02, 17th Criminal Law Update;

(n)   05-08-02, Annual Judicial Conference;

(o)   07-08-02, Circuit Judges Conference;

(p)   08-01-02, 2002 SCTLA Convention;

(q)   08-22-02, Annual Judicial Conference;

(r)   11-08-02, Annual 12th Criminal Practice in S.C.;

(s)   01-24-03, Civil Law Update;

(t)     01-24-03, 18th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(u)   05-07-03, Circuit Judges Conference;

(v)   08-07-03, 2003 SCTLA Convention;

(w)   08-21-03, Annual Judicial Conference;

(x)   11-21-03, 13th Annual Criminal Practice in S.C."
Judge Manning reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"Group Facilitator in General Jurisdiction Course, Reno, N.V.;
09-13-98   Group Facilitator in Essential Skills Course, Reno, N.V.;
1998       Presiding Judge for Judge Court;

Lexington, S.C.

"(a)   federal:   3%;

(b)   state:     97%."
Judge Manning reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     40%;

(b)   criminal:   50%;

(c)   domestic:   10%."
Judge Manning reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   jury:     20%;

(b)   non-jury:   80%."
Judge Manning provided that prior to election to the bench he most often served as sole counsel.
Judge Manning reported that he has been employed from 1993 to the present by Gamecock Sports Properties and Master Talent Fee Agreement (formerly Host Communications) as Color Analyst for the University of S.C. Basketball Team.
Judge Manning was elected Circuit Court judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in February 1994. He provided the following list of significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   State v. Tamika Grooms, 343 S.C. 248,540 S.E.2d 99. Verbal Order from the bench regarding the burden of proof by which a defendant must establish a 'credible history of criminal domestic violence' in order to obtain earlier parole eligibility date provided by Section 16-25-90 (Supp 1999);

(b)   Kathy Gibson v. Spartanburg School District #3. Court of Appeals Opinion No. 3102;

(c)   State v. William Ernest Downs, Jr., (Death Penalty Sentencing Order);

(d)   City of Columbia v. Pic-A-Flick Video, Inc., Supreme Court Opinion No. 25113;

(e)   State v. Cutro. Routine. (Bail Order)."

"(a)   S.C. Bar Association, 1977-Present;

(b)   S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Secretary (Chairman 1987-1988);

(c)   American Bar Association;

(d)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Assn., National Minority Delegate;

(e)   Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce, Sports Committee, 1973-74;

(f)   Richland County Bar Association;

(g)   S.C. Bar Board of Law Examiners, 1992;

(h)   S.C. Bar Special Committee on the Judiciary, 1991-1992;

(i)   S.C. Bar Commission on Judicial Conduct;

(j)   S.C. Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 1996-Present;

(k)   Hearing Masters, Rules on Judicial Discipline & Standards, 1994-1998;

(l)   United States Court of Appeals;

United States District Court, District of South Carolina."

"(a)   S.C. Athletic Hall of Fame, 1989-Present;

(b)   Columbia Tip-Off Club, 1989-Present; President 1991-1992;

(c)   USC Bi-Centennial Committee, 1998-2001;

(d)   Children's Justice Force Committee;

(e)   Citizens Summit Steering Committee;

(f)   Richland County Bar Civility Award 2002."
Summary of Commission's Findings:

The Commission noted Judge Manning's fairness in the courtroom to litigants and attorneys. They also commented on his solid knowledge of the law. The Commission found Judge L. Casey Manning qualified and nominated him for election to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Matthews meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Matthews was born on November 8, 1950. She is 53 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Matthews provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Matthews.
Judge Matthews demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Matthews reported that she has made $87.00 in campaign expenditures for postage and stationery.
Judge Matthews testified she has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Matthews testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Matthews to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Matthews described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2003:

(a)   10/21/03   Class Actions;

(b)   09/26/03   S.C. Administrative and Regulatory Law Association Conference;

(c)   09/23/03   Civility and Professionalism;

(d)   09/16/03-09/17/03   Central Panel Conference;

(e)   05/02/03   The Certificate of Need Case;

(f)   01/23/03   S.C. Bar Convention: Trial and Appellate Advocacy.
2002:

(a)   11/19/02   Discovery and Sanctions;

(b)   11/01/02   Ethics;

(c)   10/29/02   Sealing of Court Records;

(d)   09/20/02   S.C. Administrative and Regulatory Law Association Conference;

(e)   01/24/02   S.C. Bar Convention Spotlight on Technology in the Courtroom.
2001:

(a)   11/07/01   Ethics;

(b)   09/21/01   South Carolina Administrative and Regulatory Law Association Conference;

(c)   04/19/01   Supreme Court Historical Society Colloquium History of Women at the Bar;

(d)   01/22-

01/23/01   S.C. Bar Convention: Trial and Appellate Advocacy.
2000:

(a)   10/15-   10/17/00   National Association of Administrative Law Judges Seminar, Albany, NY;

(b)   05/12/00   Symposium on the Environmental Regulatory Process, Charleston, S.C.;

(c)   04/14/00   S.C. Women's Law Association Seminar;

(d)   03/17/00   Southern States Annual Administrative Law Seminar.
1999:

(a)   10/25-

10/29/99   National Judicial College, Reno, Nevada: Advanced Evidence;

(b)   09/12-9/14/99   National Association of Administrative Law Judges Annual Conference;

(c)   04/09/99   Women Lawyer Advocates: SCWLA Seminar."
Judge Matthews reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"2004:

(a)   03/09/04   Bridge the Gap, 'The Eight Commandments of Administrative Law Practice.'
2003:

(a)   12/12/03   Tips from the Bench IV, 'Administrative Law;'

(b)   11/14/03   Ethics for State Government Attorneys, 'Professionalism in Administrative Law Practice;'

(c)   08/07/03   'The Lighter Side of the Law,' Presentation to SCWLA Meeting;

(d)   05/12/03   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law;'

(e)   03/26/03   Panel Discussion for USC Law School Students, 'How Judges Perceive Lawyers;'

(f)   03/08/03   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law,'
2002:

(a)   12/13/02   Tips from the Bench III, 'Administrative Law;'

(b)   09/12/02   Presentation to S.C. County Auditors and Assessors, 'Ethics and Professionalism: Eight Commandments of Administrative Law;'

(c)   05/14/02   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law;'

(d)   03/10/02   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law.'
2001:

(a)   12/12/01   Tips from the Bench II, 'Eight Commandments of Administrative Law;'

(b)   05/22/01   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law;'

(c)   03/11/01   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law.'
2000:

(a)   5/23/00   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law;'

(b)   5/12/00   Symposium on the Environmental Regulatory Process: 'Interpreting Regulations: What is Reasonable?'

(c)   4/14/00   S.C. Women Lawyers Association Seminar, 'Judicial Independence;'

(d)   3/8/2000   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law.'
1994:

(a)   6/3/1994   '1994 Legislative Update' for Natural Resources Section of the S.C. Bar.
1993:

(a)   9/1993   'South Carolina State Government Restructured--the Private Sector Impact.'
1986:     'Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel' to Attorneys General of S.C.
1982:     Presentation to S.C. Circuit Judges on Appellate Practice."
Judge Matthews reported that she has published the following:
"Editor, S.C. Bar Natural Resources Newsletter, 1992-1994; South Carolina Business Journal, 'Busy Year for Environmental Issues,' S.C. Chamber of Commerce, July 1994; Legislative Year in Review, S.C. Bar Annual Conference June 1994; Legislative Review, S.C. Bar Annual Conference, June 1993; 'South Carolina State Government Restructured-The Private Sector Impact,' September 1993."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Matthews did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Matthews did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Matthews has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Matthews was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Matthews reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Matthews appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

Reviewed and researched civil and criminal appeals; Recommended disposition by Court; supervised junior Staff Attorneys; Assisted at settlement conferences; Drafted Court Rules.
Law Clerk, South Carolina Supreme Court Justice George T. Gregory, Jr. (1981-1982)

Reviewed and researched civil and criminal appeals and motions; Drafted opinions, rules, and Orders for Justice Gregory; Assisted at hearings on Extraordinary Writs such as Mandamus, Supersedeas, and Attorney Disciplinary proceedings.
Assistant Attorney General, State of South Carolina (1982-1986)

Researched and wrote more than 200 appellate briefs and argued more than 80 appeals before S.C. Supreme Court, S.C. Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court; Coordinated appeals with Solicitors; Prosecuted Medical Board and other licensing board cases. Wrote opinions as directed by the Attorney General; Represented State Agencies; Coordinated Continuing Legal Education Seminars; Chaired first Law Enforcement Leadership Conference.
Counsel, South Carolina House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, David H. Wilkins, Chairman (1986-1988)

Managed research and drafting of Legislation and amendments for all Legislation referred to Judiciary Committee. Coordinated legislative efforts with Governor's Office, Legislative staff, and state agencies. Supervised staff attorneys and law clerks.
Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough (1988-1996)

Administrative practice before State agencies such as DHEC, Department of Insurance, and Public Service Commission; Governmental Relations; Appellate practice.
Partner, Woodward Cothran & Herndon (1996-1998)

Commercial Litigation; Appellate and Administrative Law practice before state agencies, including DHEC, Insurance

Administrative and Appellate Law Practice; State and Federal Governmental Relations.
Administrative Law Judge, Seat #3 (June 2, 1999-present; reelected February 9, 2000)

Appeals from 49 Licensing Boards of LLR and DSS, HHS, DOC; Contested Cases from 11 State Agencies, including: DHEC, DOR, DNR, Department of Insurance, DHHS, DOT, DSS, OCRM, SLED, County Auditors and Assessors;

Regulatory Hearings from State agencies governed by a single director; Injunctions, Petitions for Stay, and other procedural Motions."
Judge Matthews reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   federal:   6-8 times per year;

(b)   state:     6-8 times per year."
Judge Matthews reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     90%;

(b)   criminal:   10%;

(c)   domestic:   0%."
Judge Matthews reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   jury:     5%;

(b)   non-jury:   95%."
Judge Matthews provided that prior to election to the bench she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Matthews' account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   State v. Donald Henry 'Pee Wee' Gaskins, 284 S.C. 105, 326 S.E.2d 132 (1985): Sole Counsel representing State of South Carolina in Death Penalty Appeal to S.C. Supreme Court. The case involved a 10,000 page transcript, more than 200 pages of briefs, on 19 issues, including: (1) the scope of the 4th Amendment's prohibition on unlawful searches and seizures in a jail cell; and (2) whether the admission into evidence at the

In favorem vitae [in favor of life] review required that I be prepared at oral argument not only on the briefed issues, but also to address any other issues which might be raised by the Supreme Court during argument, of which there were several. "Pee Wee" Gaskins was the most notorious serial killer in South Carolina history. [His seven prior death sentences had been commuted when South Carolina's death penalty statute was declared unconstitutional.] The South Carolina and U.S. Supreme Courts upheld his conviction and death sentence.

(b)   Grand Strand Water & Sewer Authority v. Water Resources Commission (1989): Sole Attorney in obtaining first Interbasin Transfer Permit from the S.C. Water Resources Commission. This new permit was required in order for Grand Strand Water & Sewer Authority to transfer more than one million gallons of water per day from the Waccamaw Basin to the Little Pee Dee Basin.

The permit was critical to the continued operation of one of the largest water systems in the state, which provides water and sewer service to more than 200,000 people in Horry County, the City of Myrtle Beach, North Myrtle Beach, Aynor, and upper Georgetown County. It was also a significant step toward increased usage of surface water rather than groundwater.

(c)   Alexander S. v. Boyd, et al., U.S.D.C, District of South Carolina, Civil Action No. 3:90-3062-17: [1990-2003]: This 13-year long Federal litigation involved numerous alleged violations of Constitutional Rights of Juveniles incarcerated at DJJ. It was a landmark case in the area of Prison Overcrowding, which involved numerous Federal Hearings, Mediations, Orders, Opinions, and Appeals. I represented the Department of Juvenile Justice in Federal Court for three years.

(d)   In re: Stucco Litigation, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, Civil action No. 5:96-CV-287-BR(2): Numerous individual cases and preliminary orders and opinions; On behalf of my client, I traveled to several states for depositions and pretrial hearings, argued Motions and wrote Pretrial Briefs. These cases involved the alleged failure of EIFS [Exterior Insulated Finish Systems], or 'fake stucco' in home construction. Plaintiffs had joined manufacturers, distributors, general contractors, and installers, and were attempting to certify the class

(e)   Public Hearing Report of the Administrative Law Judge, No. 98-ALJ-11-0609-RH (July 28, 1999): I represented the S.C. Association of Marriage and Family Therapists at this hearing on the 'need and reasonableness' of these regulations before the Administrative Law Judge Division in January 1999. The regulations, as promulgated, were opposed by Clinical Psychologists, who attempted to impose upon Marriage and Family Counselors and Licensed Professional Counselors rigid undergraduate and graduate course requirements, including that counselors possess a Doctoral level degree before counseling a client with a 'serious' problem.

After the hearing, Judge Anderson issued an order which did not require a Doctoral degree for all Counselors, and remanded the regulation to the Board to establish reasonable criteria. The regulations which were ultimately approved by the General Assembly both protected the public health and welfare, and were reasonable for these highly-trained professionals."
The following is Judge Matthews' account of civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   City of Aiken v. Aiken Electric Cooperative, 305 S.C. 466, 409 S.E.2d 403 (1991): This brief and this appeal were the result of a collaborative effort on behalf of Aiken Electric Cooperative, Inc., S.C. Public Service Authority [Santee Cooper], and Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. I drafted the brief, and worked extensively with Crosby Lewis on the final product. The City of Aiken filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief when SCE&G attempted to extend its power lines to annexed areas of the city. The Trial Judge granted Summary Judgment in favor of the City.

The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the City of Aiken acted within its Constitutional authority to designate the electric supplier for new customers in the annexed areas.

(b)   Alexander S. et al. v. Flora Brooks Boyd, et al., 113 F.3d 1373 (C.A.4 1997), cert. den. 118 S.Ct. 880, 139 L.Ed.2d 869 (1998): Lead counsel on brief and sole counsel on oral argument to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on case of first impression- the retroactive application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act's limitations on Attorneys Fee Awards in Juvenile Prison Litigation

(c)   Designer Showrooms, Inc. v. Kelley, 304 S.C. 478, 405 S.E.2d 417 (S.C.App.1991): Served as Counsel to the S. C. Association of Realtors in writing an Amicus brief on behalf of the National Association of Realtors at the Court of Appeals. The issue was whether by affirming a contract which it was induced to enter by fraud, Designer Showrooms waived its right to sue in tort. The Court held that if fraud gives rise to a breach of promise or warranty, the party induced by fraud may elect to affirm the contract and later bring a tort action."

Judge Matthews provided the following list of criminal appeals she has personally handled:

"[Note: The Attorney General's practice from 1982-1986, when I was an Assistant Attorney General, was to list on the State's briefs the names of: (1) Attorney General Travis Medlock; (2) Harold M. Coombs, Jr., head of the Criminal Appeals Division, (3) the Solicitor who had tried the case, and (4) the Assistant Attorney General who actually wrote the brief and argued the case. My name at that time was Carolyn Matthews Adams.

I wrote all of the following briefs without any assistance or supervision from any of the attorneys whose names are also on the cover of the briefs. I also argued solo each of the following cases before the S.C. Supreme Court:

(a)   State v. Donald Henry 'Pee Wee' Gaskins, 284 S.C. 105, 326 S.E.2d 132 (1985): Sole Counsel representing State of South Carolina in Death Penalty Appeal to S.C. Supreme Court. The case involved a 10,000-page transcript, more than 200 pages of briefs, and many issues of first impression under South Carolina's Death Penalty statute. In favorem vitae review required that I be prepared at oral argument not only on the briefed issues, but also any other issues which might be raised by the Supreme Court.

(b)   State v. Kiser, 288 S.C. 441, 343 S.E.2d 292 (1986). Sole Counsel representing State of South Carolina in case of first impression--the constitutionality of South Carolina's newly-enacted Drug Trafficking Statute, which imposed the strictest penalties of any state in the United States. Affirmed Per Curiam after argument.

(c)   State v. Brantley, 279 S.C. 215, 305 S.E.2d 234 (1983). Sole Counsel for the State of South Carolina in briefing and arguing the

(d)   State v. McLellan, 283 S.C. 389, 323 S.E.2d 772 (1984). Sole counsel for State on brief and at argument on several issues of first impression under Criminal Sexual Conduct statute: (1) Whether trial judge properly denied Motion for Mistrial based on the testimony of two sisters regarding evidence of prior abuse under the 'common scheme' test of State v. Lyle; (2) whether the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in admitting evidence of Defendant's use and sale of marijuana; and (3) whether the trial judge's admitting opinion testimony by a lay witness constituted reversible error. The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Judge on all issues.

(e)   In the Matter of Harry C., 280 S.C. 308, 313 S.E.2d (S.C. 1984). This case, tried in Family Court because of the age of the minor, dealt with the novel issue of whether entering a home through a door which was ajar constituted a 'breaking' sufficient to convict a Juvenile of the crime of 'housebreaking.' It also involved the scope of Judicial Notice; i.e., of whether 'tidy oil' was an Aromatic Hydrocarbon within the Legislature's definition of that term. The Supreme Court affirmed on both issues."

Regarding prior judicial positions, Judge Matthews reported the following:
"Administrative Law Judge, Seat #3: Elected June 2, 1999; reelected February 9, 2000. By statute, the Administrative Law Judge Division is given jurisdiction over (1) Contested Cases from State Agencies [including DHEC, DOR, DOT, DHHS, DSS, Department of Insurance, DNR, and SLED]; (2) Appeals from the Licensing Boards of LLR and other agencies [including Medicaid appeals, State Fire Marshal appeals; Appeals of Day-care and Foster Home license revocations; Child Welfare services; Qualified Domestic relations Orders; and Orders of the Director of the Department of Insurance]; and (3) Hearings involving the need for and reasonableness of Regulations promulgated by agencies governed by a single director, such as the Department of Insurance and LLR.

By S.C. Supreme Court case law, Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), the ALJD was given jurisdiction over

The Supreme Court of South Carolina has held that the ALJD does not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of statutes or regulations. Administrative Law Judges have jurisdiction to rule only on whether a statute or regulation has been unconstitutionally applied."
Judge Matthews provided the following list of her significant orders:

"(a)   South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control v. Tin Products, Inc. and J. Gray Macaulay, et al., 00-ALJ-07-0353-CC (May 7, 2002). This environmental contested case involved a massive release of Organotins and dibutyl ether into the waters of Red Bank Creek and Crystal Lake, which resulted in massive fish kills, permanent closing of a portion of the Lexington County water and sewer system, and the closing of Crystal Lake. For numerous violations of the Pollution Control Act and the Hazardous Waste Management Act, DHEC imposed the largest fine in its history- $4 million. After numerous pretrial motions and a four-day hearing, I affirmed the DHEC Administrative Order with respect to all violations.

(b)   Charleston County Public Works v. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, 02-ALJ-07-0262-CC (August 20, 2003). In this case, OCRM, while ostensibly granting a permit to build a causeway to Charleston County, instead required that the County build a bridge, which was outside the scope of the permit application. I reversed OCRM's decision on the grounds that: (1) its actions constituted an 'unwarranted exercise of discretion' under Section 1-23-380, and (2) the public was denied due process when OCRM failed to give notice of the permit conditions which radically altered the original application.

(c)   Anonymous Taxpayer v. S.C. Department of Revenue, 00-ALJ-17-0590-CC (April 17, 2001). This case involved two novel taxation issues: (1) whether meals included in hotel room charges were subject to a 7% accommodations tax or a 5% 'additional guest charges' tax and (2) whether food and beverages withdrawn from inventory were subject to Sales Tax. I upheld DOR's Order, holding that the 7% tax applied to the meal charges, and that the Sales Tax applied to inventory withdrawals.

(d)   Clarence T. Hamrick, III, D.M.D. v. S.C. Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation and State Board of Dentistry, 99-ALJ-11-0659-AP (June 19, 2000), affirmed on appeal by Circuit

(e)   Trident Medical Center, LLC and CareAlliance Health Services v. S.C. DHEC and HealthFirst, LLC, 02-ALJ-07-0026-CC (June 13, 2003). This contested Certificate of Need case involved balancing the need for a proposed Ambulatory Surgery Center with two operating rooms dedicated to ophthalmic surgery against the needs of existing hospitals in the Charleston area. After a four-day hearing, I found that Trident Medical Center's application complied with the requirements of The State Health Plan and that the Certificate of Need should be granted."
Judge Matthews provided the following regarding prior unsuccessful candidacies:
"I was a candidate for the Circuit Court in 1995, but withdrew when it became apparent I could not win."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Matthews' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Matthews is a qualified and highly-regarded judge who would ably serve on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Matthews is married to John Andrew McAllister, Jr. She has three children.
Judge Matthews reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   S.C. Bar Association [November 8, 1978-present]:

S.C. Bar House of Delegates [1998-1999];

Mentor, S.C. Young Lawyers Division [1996-1999];

S.C. Bar Legislative Counsel Committee [1991-1996];

S.C. Bar Committee on Continuing Legal Education [1994-1997];

S.C. Bar Practice and Procedure Committee:

Subcommittee to draft legislation creating S.C. Court of Appeals;

(b)   Richland County Bar Association [1978-present]:

Chair, Legal Services Committee [1996-1999];

Chair, Richland County Bar Programs Committee [1991-1992];

(c)   S.C. Women Lawyers Association [1995-present]:

Board of Directors [1995-2001];

(d)   National Association of Women Lawyers [2003-present];

(e)   National Association of Administrative Law Judges [1999-     present];

(f)   S.C. Association of Administrative and Regulatory Law     Association [2000-present];

(g)   John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court [2002-present]."
Judge Matthews provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Governors Advisory Committee to Study the Commission on Women (Jan. 2004-present);

(b)   Leadership South Carolina (1993 Graduate);

(c)   Furman University National Development Council (1998-1999);

(d)   First Presbyterian Church of Columbia, S.C."
Judge Matthews further provided:
"The General Assembly of South Carolina has conferred on me the privilege of serving the State as an Administrative Law Judge for the past five years. Because the Administrative Law Judges hear contested cases from many state agencies, including DHEC, the Department of Revenue, and the Department of Transportation, we are affording due process and an opportunity to be heard to many citizens of South Carolina who have no other forum.
Contested cases involve matters as diverse as Certificates of Need for Hospitals, Designations as a Minority Business Enterprise, Environmental permitting and penalties, Property Tax Assessment Appeals from every county in the state, and permits for bridges and docks in the eight coastal counties. We also hear appeals from the 49 Licensing Boards of LLR, including doctors, dentists, nurses, well drillers, and general contractors who have been disciplined by their respective Boards, as well as appeals from other state agencies. Our orders affect the livelihood of these individuals and protect the public welfare and safety.
In my legal career, I have been fortunate to serve as Staff Attorney at the S.C. Supreme Court, as Law Clerk to the late Chief Justice

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Short meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Short was born on January 13, 1947. He is 57 years old and a resident of Chester, South Carolina. Judge Short provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Short.
Judge Short demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Short reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Short testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Short testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Short to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Short described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2003

01/24     18th Annual Criminal Law Update;

05/07     SCACJ Circuit Judges Meeting;

08/07     Roscoe Pound Institute, The Civil Jury in America;
2002

01/25     S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update;

05/08     SCACJ Circuit Judges' Annual Convention;

08/01     S.C. Trial Lawyers Assoc. Annual Convention;

08/22     SCCA Judicial Conference;
2001

01/26     S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update;

01/05     York County Bar Assoc., Sticks & Stones,             Appointed;

05/09     S.C. Assoc. Circuit Judges' Conference;

07/09     National Judicial College, Reno, NV, Law &             the Social & Behavioral Sciences;

08/23     S.C. Circuit Court Assoc. Judicial Conference;
2000

01/21     S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update;

05/10     S.C. Assoc. Circuit Judges' Conference;

08/07     National Judicial College, Reno, NV, Media             and the Courts;
1999

01/22     S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update;

05/12     S.C. Assoc. Circuit Judges' Conference;

07/19-07/23   National Judicial College, Reno, NV,               Constitutional Criminal Procedure; History &             Theory of Jurisprudence;

07/26     National Judicial College, Reno, NV, Judicial             Writing;

08/05     S.C. Trial Lawyers Assoc., Annual               Convention;

08/19     S.C. Circuit Court Assoc. Judicial               Conference."
Judge Short reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   September 15, 1995: South Carolina Legal Secretaries Association. I was the instructor for a Seminar on Rules of Civil Procedure.
(b)   September 30 - October 18, 1996: National Judicial College/Reno, Nevada. I served as a Group Facilitator with the faculty for the General Jurisdiction Course for new Judges. I led group discussions four (4) hours each day on a wide variety of legal topics.
(c)   September 29, 1997: South Carolina Solicitor's Conference, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I spoke on the topic

"(a)   federal:   Occasionally;

(b)   state:     Regularly."
Judge Short reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     20%;

(b)   criminal:   50%;

(c)   domestic:   30%."
Judge Short reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   jury:     95%;

(b)   non-jury:   5%."
Judge Short provided that prior to election to the bench he most often served as sole counsel and occasionally as chief counsel.
The following is Judge Short's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Walter Neal and Industrial Chemical Company, Inc. v. J. Simpson Darby, L.H. Schwieterman, John Archie Lucas, Donald B. Murray, Marion M. Thomas, and J. F. Martin, as members of the Chester County Council and the County of Chester, (1984). Court of Appeals Opinion #0207 filed June 22, 1984. I was Chester County Attorney in 1980 and the Chester County Council was in the process of adopting an ordinance pertaining to the handling and storage of hazardous chemicals in Chester County. Mr. Neal brought suit in Common Pleas Court to question the

(b)   Chester County Hospital and Nursing Center v. J.F. Martin, Simpson Darby, John Lucas, Marion M. Thomas, Don Murray, Carlisle Roddey, Lowell Schweiterman, individually and as members of the Chester County Council, and the Chester County Council, (1984). South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion #22053 filed March 6, 1984. In 1981, the Chester County Council was in the process of adopting an ordinance to increase the size of the Chester County Hospital Board and to provide that Council would appoint said Board members. This Board had previously been created by a local act of the General Assembly in 1947 which provided that vacancies would be filled by a two-thirds vote of the remaining Board members themselves. The Board petitioned the Circuit Court for an injunction to prevent the Council from enacting the ordinance. After an extensive hearing on the matter, which included the testimony of many respected leaders of the community such as U.S. District Court Judge Robert W. Hemphill, deceased, the lower Court issued a permanent injunction on the grounds that the County was attempting to exercise power beyond its limitations in violation of Section 4-9-170, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, as amended. The South Carolina Supreme Court remanded the case and vacated the injunction. The Court stated that it was well recognized that a Court could not restrain by injunction, the exercise of legislative power by counties. The Court cited 43A C.J.S., which states that restraining power of a Court should be directed against enforcement rather than passage of ordinances. The case is very significant because the Court upheld the County's actions which were undertaken because of the Home Rule Act.

(c)   Vera B. Lawson, Executrix of the Estate of Robert Smith Lawson, deceased v. Bowaters Carolina Corporation, U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals #77-8320. Order filed October 31, 1977.

(d)   Canzadia White, as Administratrix of the Estate of Richard C. Carter, deceased v. Holsum Bakery, Inc., (1972). This was a wrongful death case in which all of the witnesses of the Plaintiff's accident were the deceased's minor children. A lot of preparation was required to ensure that the minor children would be qualified by the Court to testify. A verdict was returned for the Plaintiff, and it has been said that this was at that time, the highest jury verdict returned in Chester County for the wrongful death of a black man.

(e)   Crystal J. Harmon, Committee for Benjamin Joseph Harmon, an Incompetent v. Aegis Corporation, Long Mill Rubber Company and Ryder Truck Rental Company, U.S. District Court, Greenville

"(a)   Walter Neal and Industrial Chemical Company, Inc. v. J. Simpson Darby, L.H. Schwieterman, John Archie Lucas, Donald B. Murray, Marion M. Thomas, and J. F. Martin as members of the Chester County Council and the County of Chester, S.C. Court of Appeals, June 22, 1984; 282 S.C. 277; 318 S.E.2d 18.

(b)   Chester County Hospital and Nursing Center v. J.F. Martin, Simpson Darby, John Lucas, Marion M. Thomas, Don Murray, Charlisle Roddey, Lowell Schweiterman, individually and as members of the Chester County Council, and the Chester County Council, S.C. Court of Appeals; March 6, 1984; 281 S.C. 25; 314 S.E.2d 25.

(c)   Thomas Beckham v. Sara Kay B. Short, S.C. Supreme Court and S.C. Court of Appeals, June 5, 1989, and January 25, 1988; 380 S.E. 2d 826; 298 S.C. 348; 365 S.E.2d 42; 294 S.C. 415

(d)   Patricia Moore Lucas v. Ernest Wendell Lucas, S.C. Supreme Court, May 9, 1983; 302 S.E.2d. 863; S.C.

(e)   Willie Mack Thomas, Sr. and Naomi F. Thomas v. George Wilson, individually and d/b/a Palmetto Mobile Homes, S.C. Court of Appeals, March 9, 1984, Memorandum Opinion No. 84-MO-007."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Stevens meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Stevens was born on October 7, 1949. He is 54 years old and a resident of Simpsonville, South Carolina. Judge Stevens provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Stevens.
Judge Stevens demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Stevens reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Stevens testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Stevens testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.

1.   Taught fundamentals of Federal Taxation of partnerships, corporations, and estates at Midlands Technical College, Columbia, S.C.

2.   Guest lectures at USC Law School, State and Local Tax classes including:

a. Duties and functions of county officials in property taxation

b. Taxation of railroads under the Federal 4-R Act
B.   Lecturer at Bar Associations

1.   S.C. Bar: Taught Administrative Law for Bridge the Gap each     year of 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.

2.   S.C. Bar: Annual Convention, Governmental Section, Litigating     Before the ALJD, Summer 1999

3.   S.C. Bar: 1999 That Was the Year That Was Review of

Changes in Administrative Law

4.   Greenville County Tax Bar

a. Remedies and Procedures for Suits Against State Officials

b. Adm. Procedures Before the S.C. Dept. Of Revenue

5.   Columbia Tax Study Group-Tax Practice Under the Revenue Procedures Act
C.   Continuing Legal Education Lectures

1.   Federation of Tax Administrators-42 USC Section 1983 in State     Court Tax Disputes

2.   Southeastern Association of Tax Attorneys

a. Collecting Taxes Under An Automatic Stay Due To Bankruptcy

b. Nexus and Jurisdiction for Taxation Of Delaware Holding Companies

3.   Vanderbilt University's Paul J. Hartman Tax Forum

a. Moot Court Presentation on Taxation of Intangibles

b. Geoffrey v. South Carolina: Is the Camel's Nose Under the Tent?

4.   Ohio Tax Conference-Intangibles and the Creation of Nexus     For Income Tax Purposes.

5.   S.C. Chamber of Commerce-Taxes and the Bottom Line:     New Tax Appeal Process."
Judge Stevens reported that he has published the following:

"(a)   'Unwanted Assets Spun Off Prior to Acquisition of Wanted Assets'

1980 South Carolina Bar Publication;

(b)   'The Use of Title 42 USC Section 1983 in State Tax Litigation'

1988 REVENUE ADMINISTRATION;

(c)   'Delaware Subsidiaries Can Still Reduce Tax But More Planning Needed;'

March/April 1992 THE JOURNAL OF MULTISTATE TAXATION;

(d)   'Geoffrey v. South Carolina Tax Commission: Is the Camel's Nose Under the Tent?'

Tax Management, Multistate Tax Report, December 22, 1995."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Stevens did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Stevens did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Stevens has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Stevens was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Stevens reported that he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell because he was a judge, and that prior to becoming a judge he had no rating because he was in public service with the S.C. Attorney General's Office.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Stevens appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Stevens appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Stevens was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
Judge Stevens provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1978-79     Stophel, Caldwell & Heggie

General corporate practice with emphasis on taxation.
1979-80     U.S. Internal Revenue Service

Federal estate and gift tax return examiner.
1980-95     S.C. Attorney General

Chief Deputy Attorney General and Director of Tax Division; issued Attorney General Opinions and responsible for all tax litigation as well as defense of State at all levels from administrative hearings to trials in the state and federal courts.
1995-present   Administrative Law Judge Division

Judge presiding over contested cases, appeals and regulation reviews."

"(a)   federal:   Federal District Court, 2 times;

U.S. Supreme Court, 3 times, once on brief in chief, twice on brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari;

(b)   state:     Trial Court, 21 times: 10 appearances with case settled before trial, and 11 appearances conducting trial as lead counsel.

S.C. Court of Appeals, 3 times: once as lead counsel writing all briefs and making oral argument; two times as assisting counsel.

S.C. Supreme Court, 12 times: 8 times as lead counsel writing all briefs and making oral argument; 4 as assisting counsel."
Judge Stevens reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     100%."
Judge Stevens reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   non-jury:   100%."
Judge Stevens provided that prior to election to the bench he most often served as sole counsel with other attorneys in office listed in name only on the pleadings.
The following is Judge Stevens' account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Spencer v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 281 S.C. 492, 316 S.E.2d 386 (May 15, 1984), Certiorari Granted by 469 U.S. 879, 105 S.Ct. 242, (Oct. 1984), Judgment Affirmed by Spencer v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 471 U.S. 82, 105 S.Ct. 1859 (Mar 27, 1985), Rehearing Denied by 471 U.S. 1112, 105 S.Ct. 2349 (May 13, 1985). The S.C. Supreme Court established that 42 USC Section 1983 could not be used in state court to recover taxes paid and correspondingly established that attorney fees could not be obtained against the State under the companion federal statute of 42 USC Section 1988. Briefing and oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court resulted in a decision affirming the S.C. Supreme Court by a 4 to 4 decision with Justice Powell abstaining.

(b)   Reyelt v. State of South Carolina, United States District Court, 6:93-1491-3 (Nov. 15, 1993). This unappealed decision determined that South Carolina's initial Video Game Machines

(c)   Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 313 S.C. 15, 437 S.E.2d 13 (Jul 06, 1993), Certiorari Denied by 510 U.S. 992, 114 S.Ct. 550, (Nov 29, 1993). This decision established that due process is not violated by taxing an entity that utilizes an intangible (i.e. a trademark) in South Carolina to produce income even when the entity has no employees, no office, and no physical presence in the State.

(d)   M. Lowenstein Corp. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 298 S.C. 93, 378 S.E.2d 272 (Ct. App. Mar 13, 1989). This decision determined that due process is not violated by taxing the interest income of a taxpayer so long as the interest income is part of the taxpayer's unitary business and so long as a portion of the unitary business is carried on in South Carolina.

(e)   South Carolina Tax Com'n v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 316 S.C. 163, 447 S.E.2d 843 (Jul 18, 1994). This case decided that the Freedom of Information Act does not prevent an agency from disclosing allegedly confidential contract documents and pollution investigation documents when those documents are voluntarily given to a state agency in an effort to lower a tax assessment."
The following is Judge Stevens' account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 313 S.C. 15, 437 S.E.2d 13 (Jul 06, 1993), Certiorari Denied by 510 U.S. 992, 114 S.Ct. 550, (Nov 29, 1993).

(b)   South Carolina Tax Com'n v. South Carolina Tax Bd. of Review, 305 S.C. 183, 407 S.E.2d 627 (May 06, 1991), Certiorari Denied by Collins Music Co., Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 502 U.S. 1034, 112 S.Ct. 878, (Jan 13, 1992).

(c)   Thayer v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 307 S.C. 6, 413 S.E.2d 810 (Jan. 13, 1992), rehearing denied (Feb 20, 1992).

(d)   NCR Corp. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 304 S.C. 1, 402 S.E.2d 666 (Feb 04, 1991), Appeal After Remand, NCR Corp. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 312 S.C. 52, 439 S.E.2d 254 (Dec 13, 1993), Certiorari Denied by NCR Corp. v. South Carolina Dept. of Revenue and Taxation, 512 U.S. 1245, 114 S.Ct. 2763, (Jun 27, 1994).

(e)   M. Lowenstein Corp. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 298 S.C. 93, 378 S.E.2d 272 (Ct. App. Mar 13, 1989)."

Judge Stevens reported that he was elected by the General Assembly on March 21, 1995, to the office of Administrative Law Judge, Seat #5. He took the oath of office on April 14, 1995, and has served continuously since. He further provided: "Pursuant to the South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act, I preside over hearings, render decisions and issue orders in a broad range of administrative cases involving governmental agencies and private parties. Jurisdiction includes administrative cases involving health, childcare, environmental, natural resource, insurance, alcoholic beverage, and tax issues, as well as other licensing matters. Cases are heard as contested cases at an evidentiary trial level as well as appellate cases decided on briefs and oral argument. Finally, ALJs also exercise certain equitable, subpoena, and contempt powers."

Judge Stevens provided the following list of significant orders:

"(a)   D. Michael Woodward, M.D. v. South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation--Division of Professional and Occupational Licensing, Board of Medical Examiners, 98-ALJ-11-0587-AP, June 1, 1999. Allegations of improper sexual conduct by a physician required an appellate review which examined constitutional and statutory challenges to an alleged 'unfair hearing' held by the Medical Board. While errors were committed by the Board, a harmless error analysis found the mistakes insufficient to form a basis for reversal of the Board's decision.

(b)   Gaffney Properties as an affiliate of Boyd Management v. Lee S. Harmon, Cherokee County Assessor, 95-ALJ-17-0265-CC, decided November 8, 1995. This case established an innovative method for valuing subsidized housing projects for property tax purposes. The fair market value is based upon adding the value of the rental income stream, the value of the Government's 'interest subsidy,' and the value of the federal income tax credits granted to owners of subsidized housing.

(c)   Oncology Therapies of Greenville, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Greenville Cancer Center, and Greenville Hospital System, 96-ALJ-07-0205-CC, decided June 6, 1997. This case established that the standard of proof in a Certificate of Need (CON) case is that of the preponderance of the evidence with the Administrative Law Judge acting as the fact-finder and the DHEC Board as the appellate review authority. Further, the case established that an ALJ hearing a CON controversy does not act as a mere 'reviewer' of the DHEC staff decision. Rather, the ALJ conducts a contested case in which evidence is weighed to determine whether granting or denying a CON is warranted.

(d)   Medstar Ambulance Service, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 96-ALJ-07-0498-CC, decided May 6, 1997. This case revoked an ambulance license for numerous violations of DHEC statutes and regulations and required examining dozens of licensing procedures, highway safety statutes, and rules for training, certification and personnel requirements of emergency medical technicians. The case also held the revocation proceeding need not examine evidence under the stringent clear and convincing standard but under the less demanding standard of preponderance of the evidence.

(e)   Dennison A. Royal v. Charleston County Assessor, 95-ALJ-17-0522-CC, decided December 12, 1995. This case found the county's property value methodology discriminated against the taxpayer in violation of the equal protection clause of the Federal and State Constitution. The assessor subjected the taxpayer to a different valuation method than other similarly situated taxpayers. This practice caused a higher value to inherently attach to the taxpayer's property and thus violated his rights to equal treatment and uniformity."

Judge Stevens reported the following regarding prior unsuccessful candidacies:

"ALJ Seat #1 in February 1994 and ALJ Seat #6 in May 1994. Also, nominated but not elected in a race for Court of Appeals, Seat #3 in February 2000."

"(a)   Member of S.C. Bar;

(b)   Member of Greenville County Bar."
Judge Stevens reported that he was past publicity chairman for a band booster club. Judge Stevens further reported that he was an active member and deacon at Pendleton Street Baptist Church, Greenville, South Carolina, serving in various capacities including Staff Resources Committee (personnel committee).
Summary of Commission's Findings:
The Commission noted Judge Stevens' astute legal mind as evidenced by his scholarly work product. They also commented on his outstanding reputation in the legal community. The Commission found Judge Ray N. Stevens qualified for service on the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Pieper meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Pieper was born on October 8, 1961. He is 42 years old and a resident of North Charleston, South Carolina. Judge Pieper provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Pieper.

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Pieper testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Pieper to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Pieper described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Circuit Judges' Meeting in May of each year;

(b)   Judicial Conference in August of each year;

(c)   S.C. Bar Criminal law update each year in January;

(d)   S.C. Bar's Tips from the Bench which I put on for the bar in December of each year. This program offers practice tips for all levels of court in our state.
I generally have in excess of 30 additional CLE hours to carry forward each year."
Judge Pieper reported that he has taught or lectured as follows:
"I spoke at a CLE for Masters-in-Equity on civil procedure. I currently put together an annual program for the S.C. Bar that covers practice pointers for all the various courts in the State. It has been a very popular program for the Bar during the last few years."
Judge Pieper reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

"(a)   non-jury:   100%."
Judge Pieper provided that prior to election to the bench he most often served as associate counsel.
Regarding significant litigated matters, Judge Pieper stated:
"I handled tax and estate planning matters as well as collection and foreclosure proceedings which fortunately did not involve significant litigation. I do not know of anything that was something other than routine.
Note: As a trial judge, I have presided over 400-500 jury trials for all types of matters both civil and criminal."
Regarding civil appeals, Judge Pieper stated:
"I handled tax and estate planning matters as well as foreclosure proceedings which fortunately did not involve appeals. The appeals work that I did involved working on briefs and legal arguments which did not require me to personally handle the case as requested in the question.
Note: As a trial judge, I have heard hundreds of appeals from magistrate and municipal courts, probate courts, and administrative agencies. The same methodology would apply to handling these matters on the Court of Appeals."
Regarding criminal appeals, Judge Pieper stated:
"I handled tax and estate planning matters as well as foreclosure proceedings which fortunately did not involve appeals. Any appeals work that I did involved working on briefs and legal arguments which did not require me to personally handle the case as requested in the question. For example, in State v. Tanner, 385 S.E.2d 832 (1989), I assisted my partner with the brief but I was not personally handling the case. The case resulted in a reversal of a criminal conviction based on the asserted error of the court in denying a continuance which is very rare in this state."
Judge Pieper reported that he has held the following judicial positions:
"April 1989 - October 1991: Part-time Berkeley County Magistrate; appointed position; civil jurisdiction of $2500 and limited criminal jurisdiction depending on the statute involved. Presided over all cases assigned to my office. Eventually, I was appointed Chief Magistrate.

"(a)   Stewart v. Richland Memorial Hospital, 567 S.E.2d 510 (S.C. App. 2002). This case involved a negligence action against a public hospital alleging a nurse breached the standard of care. The case focused on the applicable standard under the Tort Claims Act as well as the applicability of the Act's mandatory caps. Affirmed.

(b)   Duke Power v. Public Service Comm. of S.C., 541 S.E.2d 250 (2001). This was an interesting case regarding a utility's right to serve a particular territory. Affirmed.

(c)   State v. Harvin, 547 S.E.2d 497 (2001); murder/armed robbery case. This case involved a novel issue of the applicability of New York law to a statement given by the defendant while detained in that state on an unrelated charge. Affirmed.

(d)   State v. Dennis, 523 S.E.2d 173 (1999); murder trial. The case dealt with interesting issues pertaining to severance as well as the use of an excited utterance by a co-defendant and whether the use of that statement violated the confrontation clause. Affirmed.

(e)   State v. Cannon, 520 S.E.2d 317 (1999); drug case. Originally, the Court of Appeals reversed the court's decision allowing the introduction into evidence of certain drugs that were seized incident to a warrantless arrest. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and held that the trial court's

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Thomas meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Thomas was born on October 20, 1957. She is 46 years old and a resident of Pawleys Island, South Carolina. Judge Thomas provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Thomas.
Judge Thomas demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Thomas testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Thomas to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Thomas described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   14th Annual Criminal Law Update, 01/22/1999;

(b)   S.C. Circuit Court Judges, 05/12/1999;

(c)   Judicial Conference, 08/19/1999;

(d)   S.C. Circuit Court Judges, 05/10/2000;

(e)   Annual Judicial Conference, 08/16/2000;

(f)   Criminal Law Update, 01/26/2001;

(g)   S.C. Circuit Court Judges, 05/09/2001;

(h)   Judicial Conference, 08/23/2001;

(i)     Criminal Law Update, 01/25/2002;

(j)     Criminal Law Update, 01/24/2003;

(k)   S.C. Circuit Court Judges, 05/07/2003;

(l)     2003 Annual SCTLA Convention, 08/07/2003;

(m)   Judicial Conference, 08/21/2003;

(n)   2nd Annual Civil Law Update, 01/23/2004;

(o)   19th Annual Criminal Law Update, 01/23/2004."
Judge Thomas reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"August 6, 1993   'Restructured State Government & The State of Administrative Law.' Speaker;
April 26, 1996   'So You Want To Be A Judge'--Women in Law, Columbia, S.C.,

"(a)   federal:   Appeared twice;

(b)   state:     Appeared in family court and average of once           per week, appeared in circuit court an average           of once per month."
Judge Thomas reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     45%;

(b)   criminal:   15%;

(c)   domestic:   40%."
Judge Thomas reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   jury:     2%;

(b)   non-jury:   98%."
Judge Thomas provided that prior to election to the bench she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Thomas' account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Harry F. Cameron v. Georgetown Steel. Workers' Compensation Claim regarding novel question dealing with the 'coming and going rule.' Case # WWC 9357660;

(b)   Paula Wilson, et al. v. Patricia Brown, a/k/a Patricia Brown Nance. Issue of whether a deceased individual was competent at the time of marriage and the children's standing to sue. Case # 95-DR-22-156;

(c)   State of South Carolina v. Marshall Beam. First case in the 15th Circuit in which an individual was charged under the Criminal Negligence statute in South Carolina. Case # 93-GS-26-2153;

(d)   State v. Robert Prince. Addressed numerous search and seizure issues. Case # 87-GS-22- .;

(e)   Swails v. Revco. Establishing damages for administering wrong medication. Case # 95-CP-22-260."
The following is Judge Thomas' account of a civil appeal she has personally handled:

"(a)   Myra Jean Merritt v. Carl A. Merritt, Jr., Docket 3-95-610. (Co-counsel)."
Regarding prior judicial positions held, Judge Thomas reported:
"Elected May 22, 1996, S.C. Circuit Court, At-Large Seat #1 (un-expired term); Re-elected in May of 1997; Elected May 23, 1998, S.C. Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit, Seat #1."
Judge Thomas provided the following list of her significant orders:

"(a)   State of S.C. v. Bryant, 2000-GS-26-3326, Death Penalty case, Supreme Court Opinion;

(b)   Farm Bureau v. Chandler, 95-CP-45-142; S.C. Appeals Court & Supreme Court rulings;

(c)   Richmond v. FGH, Inc., et al., 98-CP-22-199, Order Amending Judgment;

(d)   Cole v. Frie, Unpublished Opinion No. 2002-UP-472;

(e)   Henson v. International Paper Co., Wrongful Death, S.C. Appeals Court Opinion # 3745."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Thomas' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Thomas "is qualified for election to the position of Judge of the Court of Appeals, Seat 2. As a result of its current investigation and previous interview with Judge Thomas, the Committee recommends this candidate without reservation."
Judge Thomas is married to Don Stanely Thomas. She has three children.
Judge Thomas reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   S.C. Bar Association;

(b)   S.C. Circuit Judges Association."
Judge Thomas provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Cities of Character, Georgetown, S.C. Advisory Board member;

(b)   St. Paul's Waccamaw United Methodist Church."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Williams meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Williams was born on March 13, 1956. He is 48 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Williams provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Williams.
Judge Williams demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Williams reported that he has made $157.76 in campaign expenditures for stationery, $33.76; for typing, $50.00; and for postage, $74.00.

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Williams testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Williams to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Williams described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   Current Issues in Family Law; sponsored by National Judicial College; 24 hours, February 2002
(b)   Organized and participated in School for New Family Court Judges; July 2002
(c)   I have attended numerous CLEs and exceeded JCLE requirements
(d)   I have attended several Drug Court Conventions and attended numerous education courses relating to Drug Courts.
01/09/98   Seminar of Circuit & Family Court Judges for             Administrative Purposes;
03/05/98   Governor's Conference on Youth Crime;
05/21/98   Family Court Judges' Conference;
01/23/98   Family Law Midyear Meeting;
08/13/98   SC Trial Lawyers - 1998 Annual Convention;
08/20/98   Judicial Conference;
11/06/98   1998 Family Court Bench Bar;
05/19/99   Family Court Judges Conference;
06/28/99   Family & Circuit Court Judges Orientation School;
08/05/99   1999 Annual Convention;
08/19/99   Judicial Conference;
12/03/99   Bench/Bar Family Law Seminar;
01/21/00   Family Law Section;
08/16/00   Annual Judicial Conference;
05/03/00   Family Court Judges Conference;

"1982 - 1995   General practice of law with primary emphasis on               family law and personal injury law.

Scott, Mathews and Williams, 1982 - 1991;

Trotter and Williams, 1991 - 1995;

1991 - 1995     Part-time Municipal Judge for Irmo, South Carolina;

1995 - present   South Carolina Family Court Judge."
Judge Williams reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   federal:   low;

(b)   state:     high."
Judge Williams reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     30%;

(b)   criminal:   5%;

(c)   domestic:   65%."
Judge Williams reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   jury:     5%;

(b)   non-jury:   95%."

"(a)   Melvin v. Melvin. Long-term marriage involving issues of contested divorce and equitable distribution including military retirement;

(b)   Inman v. Inman. A custody case involving a mother who moved out of state. The mother retained custody, but she had to return to South Carolina;

(c)   Oswald v. Oswald. A contested domestic action involving child support, visitation, equitable distribution and attorney fees. The case is significant in that it involved most issues in private domestic actions;

(d)   Jackson v. Jackson. A domestic case tried for the mother, seeking custody and visitation, who had in prior years given up custody and visitation with her children. Custody was obtained for the mother;

(e)   Bullard v. Ehrhardt, 324 S.E.2d 61, 283 S.C. 557 (1984). This case established duty of store owner to invitees for the criminal actions of third parties in negligence actions."

The following is Judge Williams' account of civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Marvin E. Davis v. Bernice H. Davis;

(b)   Oyler v. Oyler, 358 S.E.2d 170, 293 S.C. 4 (S.C. App. 1987). Participation in this appeal limited to responsibility for oral argument and assisting in writing brief;

(c)   Bullard v. Ehrhardt, 324 S.E.2d 61, 283 S.C. 557 (1984);

(d)   Frances June Rawl v. Roy Edwin Rawl, Sr., participation limited to oral argument."
Judge Williams provided the following list of his most significant orders:
"(a)   Bates v. Bates, Opinion 97-UP-247. Court of Appeals affirmed post-divorce modification of alimony;
(b)   Ellis v. Commander, 96-DR-40-1708. Case involved medical treatment for baby when parents object to treatment;
(c)   Jones v. Jones, 96-DR-40-2069. Divorce action with issues involving visitation and equitable distribution;
(d)   Cheung v. Beck, 95-DR-40-1958. Custody case;

"(a)   Received 'Program Achievement Award' at 1998 Governor's Conference on Youth Crime for initiating and developing the Richland County Juvenile Drug Court;

(b)   Columbia Kiwanis Club, President, 1989; 1990; Board of Directors, 1987-1991 and 1994-1995; Key Club Keywanettes, Advisor, 1983-1996;

(c)   Summit Club;

(d)   The Country Club-WildeWood and Woodcreek Farms; member of Golf & Greens Committees;

(e)   Tarantella."

Judge Williams additionally reported:

"I assisted in design and implementation of the Richland County Juvenile Drug Court Program, a comprehensive drug treatment court for offenders with serious drug problems.
I am gratified and appreciative of ratings I received from members of the Bar in the anonymous surveys since serving on the bench. I will continue to make efforts to improve in hopes of better serving the people of South Carolina. I believe my 13 years of experience as a practicing lawyer along with 8 years as a Family Court Judge give me a broad range of experience to handle the issues presented to the Court of Appeals."
Summary of Commission's Findings:
The Commission was favorably impressed with Judge Williams' balanced judicial temperament, intellect, and integrity. They recognized his dedication in advising the legislature on family law issues as well as serving as a judge for drug court. The Commission found Judge H. Bruce Williams to be qualified and nominated him for service on the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

The following candidates were found qualified and nominated:

The Honorable Mary E. Buchan       Court of Appeals, Seat 1

The Honorable L. Casey Manning       Court of Appeals, Seat 1

The Honorable Paul E. Short, Jr.       Court of Appeals, Seat 1

The Honorable Daniel F. Pieper       Court of Appeals, Seat 2

The Honorable Paula H. Thomas       Court of Appeals, Seat 2

The Honorable H. Bruce Williams     Court of Appeals, Seat 2

At 11:10 A.M., on motion of Senator GIESE, the Senate adjourned to meet next Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 12:00 Noon.

This web page was last updated on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 3:36 P.M.