of enforcing compliance with the building code. We agree with the trial court that Donevant’s claim “comes clearly within what our courts have already articulated what the law is” — that “she was required by her employer to violate the law.” By instructing Donevant not to “change, ameliorate, or in any other manner amend any action that was taken during her absence[,]” Duckett was requiring Donevant not to perform her legal duty as a building official to enforce compliance with the building code. If Donevant had followed Duck-ett’s directive and not taken action in response to the unlawful construction at the Pier Restaurant, she could have been charged with misconduct in office for failing to discharge this legal duty. See State v. Hess, 279 S.C. 14, 20, 301 S.E.2d 547, 550 (1983) (<HOLDING>). By suspending Donevant and ultimately
holding that the only question on a rule 35a motion is whether the sentence imposed was illegal on its face  emphasis added holding that an application is  pending from the time it is first filed  emphasis added holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added recognizing misconduct in office occurs when duties imposed by law have not been properly and faithfully discharged emphasis added holding a law is void for vagueness when it offers no standard of conduct that was possible to know emphasis added