I visited the Supreme Court of South Carolina on 15th November 2017. The court is the highest court in the United States state of South Carolina. The court comprises of a chief justice as well as four associate justices. I visited the court at 10 AM in the morning. I had to go through security checks before entering the court. I was not allowed to switch on my mobile phone inside the premises of the court. As I am still not a lawyer I had to ensure that I get an approval from the security in order to enter the court premises.
I got to know from one of the lawyers in the court that the court has both original as well as appellate jurisdiction. The case I had witnessed during my court visit was the case of Peggy D. Conits, Respondent, v. Spiro E. Conits, Petitioner Appellate Case No. 2016-001961.
I went to the court room and saw everyone patiently waiting for the judge to enter. Both the parties to the cases were also present in the court room. I got to know that today was final hearing date of the case. The judge came in and all the person present in the court room stood up.
The case was related to an appeal against the decisions of the court of appeal. A petition had been filed by the person making the appeal to see a writ of certiorari against the decisions of the court of appeal in Conits v. Conits, 417 S.C. 127, 789 S.E.2d 51.
In this case the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the appellant and granted the petition. The judge said that the parties had provided evidence which was conflicting. The attorney for the petitioner were Kenneth C. Porter, Porter & Rosenfeld, and David Alan Wilson, of The Law Offices of David A. Wilson, LLC, both of Greenville and the attorney for the respondent were Timothy E. Madden, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Greenville.
The case was related to an issue of divorce which was litigated in the family court however the present case only addressed the issue in relation to the value and size of the farm in Greece. An appeal had been made by the appellant in the court of appeal in relation to the farm issue however the court of appeal provided that the issue was not preserved for appellate review. On the appeal to the COA it had been provided by the appellant that he owned a three acre farm in Greece but not a thirty acer Farm. The Supreme Court ruled that the issue appealed for by the appellant was within the court of appeal’s jurisdiction.
I really had a very amazing experience on my first formal visit to the Supreme Court. I learnt various etiquettes which have to be maintained in the court by lawyers and even other people. I got to know that when a claim to review an appeal is rejected in any court an appeal against such decision can be made to the higher court