Procurement Services

Division of
Procurement Services

Search this site

Home
Audit & Certification
Legal
Political Subdivisions
- School Districts
- Large Districts
SCBO
Training Opportunities

Home > Legal > Administrative & Judicial Decisions > Other Court Opinions

Legal

Standard Clauses & Provisions
General Information - Legal
Administrative & Judicial Decisions
Research Resources
Retired Clauses and Documents

Administrative & Judicial Decisions: Other Court Opinions

▽ Companion Property v. Panel

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).

Companion v. Panel.pdf

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

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)

Hass v. Thomas.pdf

▽ Jacobs/Beers York v. Greenville Cnty School District

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.

Circuit Court Order

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

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

SCCOA-DOR.pdf

▽ Sloan v. DOT

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 filed July 25, 2005) (with underlying unpublished Court of Appeals order)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.pdf
DOT Brief.pdf
Sloan Circuit Court Order.pdf

▽ Sloan v. DOT

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

Opinion addressing challenge to emergency procurement by DOT.

Sloan v DOT(II).pdf

▽ Sloan v. Greenville Cnty School District

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 School Dist [98-CP-23-2816].pdf

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

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 [Ct. App. Op. No. 3704].pdf
Written Determination

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

Unpublished Opinion Addresses: Sufficiency of a Written Determination and Admission of testimony regarding a Written Determination.

Sloan v. Greenville [Ct. App. Op. No. 20004-UP-277].pdf

▽ Sloan v. Greenville Hospital System

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.

Court's Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

Unisys.pdf
Circuit court order relying on Unisys opinion

▽ United Waste v. Florence

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).

United Waste v. Florence.pdf

▽ Xerox v. SCSU

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.

070320 Xerox Cir. Ct. Order.pdf
070503 Xerox Cir. Ct. Order.pdf
070907 Xerox Ct. App. Order.pdf

Division of Procurement Services
1201 Main St., Suite 600 | Columbia, SC 29201
MAIN: 803.737.0600 | FAX: 803.737.0639

SITE MENU

About Us
Contact Us
Disclaimer
Public Meeting Notices

LINKS

National Association of State Purchasing Officials (NASPO)
National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP)
Report Fraud (Office of Inspector General)
South Carolina Enterprise Information System (SCEIS)