Printed Page 460, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 480, Feb. 6
|
Printed Page 460, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 480, Feb. 6
| (c) Joey M. Oliver, as GAL for Bradford Michael Oliver v. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 309 S.C. 313, 422 S.E.2d 128 (1992). Case involved litigation issues under the S.C. Tort Claims Act.
(d) State v. James Russell Cain, 297 S.C. 497, 377 S.E.2d 556 (1988) cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1010, 111 L.Ed.2d 764, 110 S.Ct. 3254. Death Penalty trial in which the defendant received the death penalty. The verdict was affirmed by the S.C. Supreme Court and certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
(e) Alvin Davis v. South Carolina, (Docket Number 85-CP-40-1771). The case involved an administrative mistake which resulted in Davis, a convicted criminal, being released without serving his jail time. Davis was arrested 10 years after his original conviction. Judge Anderson's order dealt with "numerous due process and constitutional issues". The State dismissed its intent to appeal Judge Anderson's order (which presumably found for Davis).
(f) Dillon County School District Number Two v. Lewis Sheet Metal Works, Inc., et al., 286 S.C. 207, 332 S.E.2d 555 (Ct. App. 1985) cert. denied 288 S.C. 468, 343 S.E.2d 613 (1986). Case involved the application of the Statute of Limitations to a roofing case.
(g) Columbia East Associates, A Limited Partnership v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 299 S.C. 515, 386 S.E.2d 259 (Ct. App. 1989). Action by a shopping center against the defendant supermarket alleging violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Anderson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Anderson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge Anderson is married and has two children.
Judge Anderson appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Anderson has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Anderson has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Anderson testified that 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 pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Anderson testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Anderson testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Anderson meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
Judge Anderson was found qualified by the South Carolina Bar. The Bar reported that Judge Anderson "has a very strong work ethic and has a reputation of keeping long, rigorous hours." The Bar found Judge Anderson to be "well prepared in all matters that come before him," and reported that "Judge Anderson is well respected for his analytical ability. He is intelligent and is considered a legal scholar. He has the ability to grasp the issues quickly and is able to rule from the bench promptly, appropriately citing the applicable law." The Bar found Judge Anderson to be "an individual of unquestioned character and integrity." The Bar also reported that Judge Anderson's "decisions are not influenced by the identities of the litigants or their counsel" and that "members of the Bar
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Judge Gray was screened on December 14, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Judge Gray demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, the acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Gray reported that he was named as a defendant in Jerry Screen v. Cassandra Green et al., 92-CP-06-96. The case was about a minor's claim in a structured settlement. Judge Gray stated that he represented one of the parties to the structured settlement.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Gray has lectured at the, New Family Court Judges Orientation on "Handling Pro Se Litigation" in July 1995.
The Joint Committee found Judge Gray to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Gray graduated from South Carolina State University Law School in 1963 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Gray practiced with Ernest A. Finney before he was drafted in 1963, part-time from 1965 to 1971, full-time until Justice Finney's election to the bench, and then with associates until July 1992.
Judge Gray described his practice before being elected Family Court Judge as 50% civil, 25% criminal, and 25% domestic.
Judge Gray provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(b) State v. Freeman Poinsett, 250 S.C. 293, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
(c) Finney & Gray vs. S.C. Public Services Authority, 284 S.C. 397, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
(d) Joseph Johnson vs. Henderson, 279 S.C. 132, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
(e) American Bankers vs. L.C. Frederick, Op. No. 2030, at trial level.
Judge Gray has handled a the following civil appeals:
(a) S.C. Insurance Co. vs. White, 301 S.C. 133, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
(b) Suburban Propane Gas Company vs. DesChamps, 298 S.C. 230, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
(c) S.R. Barton et al. vs. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Court of Appeals.
(d) Joseph Johnson vs. Henderson, 279 S.C. 132, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
(e) Elijah Montgomery vs. Social Security Administration, U.S. District Court.
Judge Gray has handled the following criminal appeals:
(a) In re Shaw, 274 S.C. 534, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
(b) State v. Poinsett, 250 S.C. 293, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
Judge Gray considers the following to be his most significant orders or opinions:
(a) Patricia Ann Freeman vs. Ashby O. Freeman, Docket No. 92-DR-08-2717, Op. No. 95-UP-222 (S.C. Ct. App. 1995).
(b) Norman Henslee vs. Victoria S. Henslee, Docket No. 93-DR-08-1449.
(c) Franklin H. Shaefer vs. Stephanie Ann Shaefer, Docket No. 93-DR-10-8988.
(d) Susan Newman vs. John Lee Newman, Docket No. 93-DR-43-2139.
(e) Susan L. Jessen vs. Eric C. Jessen, Docket No. 93-DR-1924, Op. No. 95-MO-183 (S.C. Sup. Ct. 1995).
In response to a request of the Joint Committee, Judge Gray provided the following additional professional experiences as indicative of his trial practice prior to his service as a Family Court Judge:
(a) Barton v. Department. This case involved a condemnation action by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(c) Finney & Gray vs. S.C. Public Service. Condemnation Action.
(d) Johnson v. Henderson. Negligence case in which an auto struck a child riding a moped. The case was appealed on the basis of an incorrect verdict being entered. The Supreme Court reversed.
(e) American Bankers vs. Frederick. Agency case wherein the Plaintiff alleged that the agent caused loss of business because of his actions.
The Joint Committee determined that Judge Gray had engaged in an active trial practice in the trial courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication. He has also served with distinction as a Family Court Judge in South Carolina.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Gray's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Gray was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge Gray is married and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Gray appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Gray has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Gray served in the U.S. Army from 1962-1965. He received a Honorable Discharge.
Judge Gray is active in professional activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Gray testified that he has not:
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Gray testified that he is aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Gray testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Gray meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Gray qualified for service on the Court of Appeals. The Bar reported that Judge Gray has "an excellent work ethic and reputation for diligence which has apparently served well in control of his docket and timely issuance of orders. He is respected for his fairness, ability to recognize issues, and evenhanded disposition of matters before him. Judge Gray is of unquestioned character and integrity. Members of the Bar interviewed were unanimous that he is fair and not influenced by litigants or counsel. In general, he is well thought of by attorneys who have appeared before him."
Judge Gray was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. The candidate's actual response to each of these questions is included in Judge Gray's transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Judge Gray was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. The candidate's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of Judge Gray's public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Mr. Hinds was screened on December 19, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Mr. Hinds demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, in particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, the acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Hinds to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Hinds' Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV, their highest rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Hinds graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1963 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since graduating from law school, Mr. Hinds worked as an associate with Fulmer, Barnes & Berry from 1963 to 1964. He worked with C. Clayton Grimes until 8 years ago. His firm is now Hinds, Cowan, Strange, Greer & Lumpkin.
Mr. Hinds described his practice over the past five years as 90% civil and 10% criminal.
Mr. Hinds provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Hinds v. United Insurance Co. of America, 248 S.C. 285, 149 S.E.2d 771 (1966). Insurance company must accept or reject application within a reasonable period of time.
(b) State v. Murrell's Inlet Camp & Marina, Inc., 259 S.C. 404, 192 S.E.2d 199 (1972). Issue was ownership of land and what lands covered by tides that the State could claim.
(d) Doyle v. South Carolina State Highway Department and the United States of America, 441 F. Supp. 701 (1977). Admiralty case involving wrongful death. Importance was that Ferry was recognized as a dangerous instrumentality.
(e) Faust v. South Carolina State Highway Department and the United States of America, 721 F.2d 934 (1983). Follow up to Doyle. Important in that South Carolina did away with the dangerous cable ferry.
Mr. Hinds has handled the following civil appeals:
(a) Hinds v. United Insurance Co. of America, 248 S.C. 285, 149 S.E.2d 771 (1966).
(b) Brave v. Blakely, 250 S.C. 353, 157 S.E.2d 726 (1967).
(c) State v. Murrell's Inlet Camp & Marina, Inc., 259 S.C. 404, 192 S.E.2d 199 (1972).
(d) Hoffman v. Cohen, 262 S.C. 71, 202 S.E.2d 363 (1974).
(e) Faust v. South Carolina State Highway Department and the United States of America, 721 F.2d 934 (1983).
Mr. Hinds stated that he has never handled any criminal appeals.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Hinds has engaged in an active trial practice, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Hinds' temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Hinds was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Hinds is married and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Hinds appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Hinds has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Hinds has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Hinds testified that 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 pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Hinds testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Hinds testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Hinds meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Hinds qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Hinds "has been a practicing attorney with a well-rounded general practice and extensive experience in the area of civil litigation as well as commercial and real estate transactions. He has also practiced previously in the criminal court. Mr. Hinds is highly respected by his peers and enjoys an excellent reputation in the community. His ethics, honesty, and integrity are above reproach. It is perceived that he would demonstrate excellent judicial temperament without bias in favor of or against any particular litigant."
Mr. Hinds was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Mr. Hinds' actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of Mr. Hinds' public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Judge Howard was screened on December 11, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Judge Howard demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, the acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Howard has taught numerous CLE courses, new judge classes, and conferences for the SC Defense Attorneys' Association.
The Joint Committee found Judge Howard to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Howard graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1973 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Howard had a general practice including civil defense, criminal defense, domestic law, plaintiff tort, workers' comp, real estate, trust and will preparation from 1973 to 1988. Further and while in private practice, Judge Howard had an extensive appellate practice. Judge Howard was elected a Circuit Court Judge in 1988.
Printed Page 460, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 480, Feb. 6
|