Home Page

search Site Search

New SC Office of the State Engineer Edition of the AIA Documents Available

Energy Independence & Sustainable Construction Advisory Committee

Iran Divestment Act

Office of State Engineer

Newest Content

SCBO Newsletter

Contract Search

New Vendor Info

About Us

Comment Form

Disclaimer

Contact Us

Procurement Services
1201 Main St., Suite 600
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 737-0600
FAX:(803) 737-0639
SFAA Logo

Legal

Administrative & Judicial Decisions – Other Court Opinions

Companion Property v. Panel

(Updated: 11/21/2007)

Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. The South Carolina Procurement Review Panel, Op. No. 2003-UP-174 (S.C. Ct. App. filed March 4, 2003).

Hass v. Thomas, 183 F.Supp.2d 800 (D.S.C. 2001)

(Updated: 11/21/2007)

Published U.S. District court case providing insight into contract controversy dispute process. Hass v. Thomas, 183 F.Supp.2d 800(D.S.C. 2001)

Jacobs/Beers York v. Greenville Cnty School District

(Updated: 7/23/2009)

Jacobs/Beers York v. Greenville Cnty School District, No. 2000-CP-23-5375 (Greenville, S.C., Ct. Comon Pleas, September 28, 2000).

Opinion of a state trail court judge finding school district's failure to provide protestant copy of proposed contract deprived protestant of ability to protest as required by district's procurement rules. Opinion ordered district to provide copy of contract, enjoined district from proceeding with the contract, and granted protestant additional time to protest.

S.C. Coin Operators Assn v. DOR, 97-CP-40-1321

(Updated: 11/21/2007)

Circuit Court order on the application of the Trade Secrets Act.

Sloan v. DOT

(Updated: 9/5/2008)

Sloan v. The Department of Transportation, Op. No. 26014 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed July 25, 2005) (with underlying unpublished Court of Appeals order)

Opinion addresses DOT's authority to enter a design-build contract using the competitive sealed proposal source selection method.

Sloan v. DOT

(Updated: 9/5/2008)

Sloan v. DOT, Opinion No. 26534 (S.C. 2008)

Opinion addressing challenge to emergency procurement by DOT.

Sloan v. Greenville Cnty School District

(Updated: 11/21/2007)

Sloan v. School District of Greenville County, No. 98-CP-23-2816 (Greenville, S.C., Ct. Comon Pleas, July 15, 2003).

Opinion of a state trail court judge which overturns a school district's emergency construction procurement.

Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531, 590 S.E.2d 338 (Ct. App. 2003)

(Updated: 5/26/2011)

Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531, 590 S.E.2d 338 (Ct. App. 2003)

Opinion Addresses: Taxpayer Standing, Mootness, Sufficiency of a Written Determination, Admission of testimony regarding a Written Determination, Liberal Construction provided procurement laws, Role of Code Policy in construing procurement laws.

Written Determination: This file contains the three written determinations reviewed by the Court of Appeals in Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531, 590 S.E.2d 338 (Ct. App. 2003), as they appear in the court's record on appeal. Read in conjunction with the court's opinion, these written determinations illustrate what type of written determination will pass muster under the law.

Sloan v. Greenville County, Op. No. 2004-UP-277 (S.C. Ct. App. dated Apr. 22, 2004)

(Updated: 11/21/2007)

Unpublished Opinion Addresses: Sufficiency of a Written Determination and Admission of testimony regarding a Written Determination.

Sloan v. Greenville Hospital System

(Updated: 10/20/2010)

Sloan v. Greenville Hospital System, Opinion No. 26827 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed June 14, 2010)

Opinion addresses different between a governmental body subject to all aspects of the Consolidated Procurement Code and a political subdivision, which is subject to limited provisions of the Procurement Code.

Sloan v. Greenville [Ct. App. 2002-UP-598]

(Updated: 11/21/2007)

Sloan v. Greenville County, Op. No. 2002-UP-598 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Oct. 1, 2002)

Unisys Corp. v. SC Budget & Control Brd, 346 S.C. 158, 551 S.E.2d 263 (2001)

(Updated: 11/21/2007)

Key opinion regarding the exclusivity of the administrative process created by 11-35-4230 for the resolution of contract disputes.

United Waste v. Florence

(Updated: 11/21/2007)

Unpublished U.S. District Court opinion addressing the legal effect of a county procurement code, resolving a "protest" of a county contract award, and providing an equitable remedy. United Waste Services, Inc. v. Florence County, C.A. No. 4-96-0979-23 (D.S.C. Oct. 11, 1996).

Xerox v. SCSU

(Updated: 7/10/2008)

Addressing argument that Procurement Code's dispute resolution process (11-35-4230) does not apply to a contract if the agency did not follow the statutorily mandated solicitation processes in awarding the contract.

South Carolina
State Fiscal Accountability Authority
Procurement Services
1201 Main Street, Suite 600 | Columbia, SC 29201