“we decline to follow durrett's 70 fair market value rule for the reason that a regularly conducted sale, open to all bidders and all creditors, is itself a safeguard against the evils of private transfers to relatives and favorites”
Treatment trajectory · 1918 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1918
1972
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Clair v. Northern Kentucky Independent Health District
in a procedural due process case under section 1983, the plaintiff must attack the state's corrective procedure as well as the substantive wrong.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pajaro Dunes Rental Agency, Inc. v. Spitters (In Re Pajaro Dunes Rental Agency, Inc.)
madrid ii
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Barrett v. Commonwealth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
we decline to follow durrett's 70 fair market value rule for the reason that a regularly conducted sale, open to all bidders and all creditors, is itself a safeguard against the evils of private transfers to relatives and favorites
cited
Cited "see"
Asquith v. Volunteers of America
See Vicory v. Walton, 721 F.2d 1062, 1065 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834 , 105 S.Ct. 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Robinson v. United States, No. 94-1037, 1995 WL 564187 , *3 (D.D.C.
cited
Cited "see"
The Estate Construction Company v. Miller & Smith Holding Company, Incorporated
See In re Madrid, 21 B.R. 424 (9th Cir.1982), aff'd, 725 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 833 , 105 S.Ct. 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 66 (1984); Durrett v. Washington Nat'l Ins.
cited
Cited "see"
Gantz v. Colonial Central Savings Bank, F.S.B. (In Re Gantz)
See In re Madrid, 21 B.R. 424, 426 (9th Cir. BAP 1982), aff'd on other grounds, 725 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 469 U.S. 833 , 105 S.Ct 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 66 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Estate Construction Co. v. Miller & Smith Holding Co.
See In re Madrid, 21 B.R. 424 (9th Cir.1982), aff'd, 725 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 833 , 105 S.Ct. 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 66 (1984); Durrett v. Washington Nat’l Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hall v. California Department of Corrections
See Vicory v. Walton, 721 F.2d 1062, 1066 (6th Cir.1983), reh'g denied, 730 F.2d 466 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834 , 105 S.Ct. 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) ("in section 1983 damage suits claiming the deprivation of a property interest without procedural due process of law, the plaintiff must plead and prove that state remedies for redressing the wrong are inadequate”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Plumer v. Maryland
See Vicory v. Walton, 721 F.2d 1062, 1065 (6th Cir.1983) (Sec. 1983 not violated "[s]o long as a state's damage remedies are not shown to be inadequate in theory or practice--that is, so long as there is no systemic problem with the state's corrective process"), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834 , 105 S.Ct. 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Plumer v. Maryland
See Vicory v. Walton, 721 F.2d 1062, 1065 (6th Cir.1983) (§ 1983 not violated “[s]o long as a state’s damage remedies are not shown to be inadequate in theory or practice — that is, so long as there is no systemic problem with the state’s corrective process”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834 , 105 S.Ct. 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Thomas F. Edwards v. Gary Livesay
See Vicory v. Walton, 721 F.2d 1062 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 125 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Ristich
See Madrid v. Lawyers Title 725 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir., 1984), cert. den. — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 66 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kjeldahl v. United States (In Re Kjeldahl)
See, In re Madrid, 725 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir.) cert. *923 denied — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 66 (1984); In re Reinboldt, 39 B.R. 677 (Bankr.Minn.1983) aff'd sub nom, In re William 39 B.R. 678 (D.Minn.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Wright v. National Bank of Stamford
See Vicory v. Walton, 721 F.2d 1062, 1064-65 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Silver Bros. Co., Inc.
See also In re Madrid, 21 B.R. 424 (BAP 9th Cir.1982), aff'd 725 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 833 , 105 S.Ct. 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 66 (1984); In re Rancourt, 153 B.R. 380 (Bankr.D.N.H.1993); In re Stadium Management Corp., 895 F.2d 845 , 847 (1st Cir.1990).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Ben Collins v. John Nagle
Id. at 543 , 101 S.Ct. at 1917 ; see also Vicory v. Walton, 721 F.2d 1062, 1065-66 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834 , 105 S.Ct. 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Beck v. General Accident Insurance (In Re Hughes & Associates Insurance Agency, Inc.)
See, e.g., In re Madrid, 725 F.2d 1197, 1204 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 833 , 105 S.Ct. 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 66 (1984) (Farris, J., concurring); In re Bundles, 61 B.R. 929, 934 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ind.1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wheless Drilling, New Park Drilling Fluids, Inc. v. Bennett
See, e.g., Madrid v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. (In re Madrid), 725 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 833 , 105 S.Ct. 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 66 (1984); Abramson v. Lakewood Bank & Trust Co., 647 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir.1981) (Clark, J., dissenting); Alden, Gross & Borowitz, Real Property Foreclosure as a Fraudulent Conveyance: Proposals For Solving the Problem, 38 Bus.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Emerald Oil Co.
See, e.g., Madrid v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. (In re Madrid), 725 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 833 , 105 S.Ct. 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 66 (1984); Abramson v. Lakewood Bank & Trust Co., 647 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir.1981) (Clark, J., dissenting); Alden, Gross & Borowitz, Real Property Foreclosure as a Fraudulent Conveyance: Proposals For Solving the Problem, 38 Bus.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Richard Thorne v. Village of Sanford, Michigan
See also Vicory v. Walton, 721 F.2d 1062 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 125 (1984). 6 The second question, regarding the equal protection violation, is more difficult.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Smith
Compare Durrett v. Washington National Insurance Co., 621 F.2d 201 (5th Cir.1980), with In re Madrid, 725 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 125 , 83 L.Ed.2d 66 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Galloway
v.
Western Union Telegraph Co.
v.
Western Union Telegraph Co.
9464.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jul 15, 1916.
Messrs. Miller Lawson , for appellant, cite: Code Civ. Proc., secs. 361, 365, 424; 11 Cyc. 28; 7 R.C.L. 783; 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 626; 165 App. Div. N.Y. 826; 155 S.W. 328 ; 129 La. 825 ; 143 Ky. 480 ; 129 S.W. 376 ; 141 Mo. App. 637 ; 134 App. Div. N.Y. 58; 120 S.W. 1088; 187 Mass. 421 ; 89 S.W. 729; 33 App. Div. N.Y. 136; 25 S.C. 243 ; 45 S.C. 4 ; 41 S.C. 206 ; 44 S.C. 376 ; 22 S.C. 309 ; 43 S.C. 262 ; 79 S.C. 388 ; 47 S.C. 150 .
Messrs. Willcox Willcox and S.M. Wetmore , for respondent, cite: As to who is prevailing party: 53 Mo. 328 ; 39 S.C. 463 ; 43 S.C. 262 ; 47 S.C. 163 ; 45 S.C. 4 ; 45 Vt. 531 ; 133 Mass. 587 ; 79 S.C. 389 ; 41 S.C. 206 .
Gary, Gage.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.[*126] This is an appeal from a taxation of costs. The action was for damages, alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, through the wilful and negligent acts of the defendant in failing to deliver a telegram. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $100 actual damages and $100 punitive damages. On appeal to this Court by the defendant, the judgment of the Circuit Court as to punitive damages was reversed, but as to actual damages it was affirmed. 101 S. C. 159, 85 S. E. 309. The present appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court, which decided that the defendant is entitled to the costs arising out of the appeal to the Supreme Court, on the ground that it was the prevailing party.
The appellant’s attorneys contend that the case of Salley v. Railway, 79 S. C. 388, 60 S. E. 938, is conclusive of the question under consideration. The Court thus states the facts, and its ruling thereon:
“The plaintiff has recovered judgment against defendant, before a magistrate, for $2 damages and $40 statutory penalty for delay in transportation of freight, and this judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court. On appeal to this Court, it was held that Sunday was not to be included in the days for which penalty is allowed, and the Court rendered judgment ‘that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed, with a reduction of $5, the overcharge on the amount found as penalty.’ The question presented is, Which party is entitled to the costs as prevailing party? This is a case at law, and the Court can only affirm or reverse, and has no power to modify as in equity cases. The judgment of this Court, therefore, in terms and in legal effect was substantially a judgment of affirmance. Of course, it cannot be said that the defendant prevailed in reversing the judgment. * * * The judgment in this case, if it is not to be strictly construed as an affirmance of the judgment appealed from, bears analogy to cases at law in[*127] which a new trial nisi has been granted, but judgment to stand affirmed, upon remitting the amount designated by the Court, in which case, if the remittance is made and judgment stands affirmed for the reduced amount, the party whose judgment stands affirmed is the prevailing party, and entitled to costs of appeal.”
In the case just mentioned, the error merely related to the amount of the verdict, and the Court could calculate with mathematical certainty the extent to which it should be reduced; furthermore, the judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed. In the present case, however, the error was not based upon the amount of the verdict for punitive damages, but upon the ground that there was no testimony whatever tending to sustain it. In other words, the error was fundamental; and the judgment, in so far as it was founded upon punitive damages, was reversed.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Gage, being disqualified, did not participate in the consideration of this case.Footnote. — As to who is the prevailing party on appeal for the purpose of determining liability to costs, see Burnett v. Johnson, 93 S. C. 316, 76 S. E. 820.