Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Wheat v. R & B Falcon Inland
See Lloyd's Leasing Ltd. v. Conoco, 868 F.2d 1447 , 1449 (5th Cir.), cert denied, 110 S.Ct. 405 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
GALEN OF FLORIDA v. Arscott
See Lanca Homeowners, Inc. v. Lantana Cascade of Palm Beach, Ltd., 541 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 964 , 110 S.Ct. 405 , 107 L.Ed.2d 371 (1989); Jones v. Thomas, 541 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1989), quashing 524 So.2d 693 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
PALM PT. PROPERTY OWNERS' v. Pisarski
See Lanca Homeowners, Inc. v. Lantana Cascade of Palm Beach, Ltd., 541 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 964 , 110 S.Ct. 405 , 107 L.Ed.2d 371 (1989); Avila South Condominium Ass'n v. Kappa Corp., 347 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1977); see also §§ 718.111, .112, .113, .114,.116, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1976) (condominium associations); §§ 723.075, .076, .077, .078, .079, Fla. Stat. (1985) (mobile home owners' associations).
cited
Cited "see"
In the Interest of C.G.T. v. State
See Matter of Adoption of Doe, 543 So.2d 741 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 405 , 107 L.Ed.2d 371 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Lloyd's Leasing Limited v. James Bates
See Lloyd's Leasing Ltd. v. Conoco, 868 F.2d 1447 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 405 , 107 L.Ed.2d 371 (1989) 2 The notice of appeal was filed on March 27, 1989.
cited
Cited "see"
Lloyd's Leasing Ltd. v. Bates
See Lloyd’s Leasing Ltd. v. Conoco, 868 F.2d 1447 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 405 , 107 L.Ed.2d 371 (1989). .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
C.E.G. v. S.W.
See also In the Matter of the Adoption of Doe, 543 So.2d 741 (Fla.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 964 , 110 S.Ct. 405 , 107 L.Ed.2d 371 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of Pima Cty. Juv. Severance Action
Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 392 , 99 S.Ct. 1760, 1768 , 60 L.Ed.2d 297 (1979) ("where the father never has come forward to participate in the rearing of his child, nothing in the Equal Protection Clause" provides him the right to veto an adoption); see also In re Adoption of Doe, 543 So.2d 741, 749 (Fla. 1989) (unwed father not entitled to veto adoption where he knew of pregnancy, yet made no attempt to assist in any way), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 964 , 110 S.Ct. 405 , 107 L.Ed.2d 371 (1989); In re Adoption of Baby Boy D, 742 P.2d 1059, 1068 (Okla. 1985), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1072 , 108 S…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Father in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-114487 v. Adam
Although parents with an existing parental relationship, either in fact or law, are entitled to the highest constitutional protec- tion, an unwed father must first take steps to establish a parent-child relationship before he may attain the same protection, Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 392 , 99 S.Ct. 1760, 1768 , 60 L.Ed.2d 297 (1979) (“where the father never has come forward to participate in the rearing of his child, nothing in the Equal Protection Clause” provides him the right to veto an adoption); see also In re Adoption of Doe, 543 So.2d 741, 749 (Fla.1989) (unwed father not enti…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
McDOWELL
v.
LANDRUM ET AL.
v.
LANDRUM ET AL.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jul 6, 1918.
Messrs. Gwynn Hannon , for appellants, cite: As to the protection given by Courts of equity to the weak-minded, and
2d Pomeroy, 3d Ed., par. 878, p. 1564. As to alleged ratification by plaintiff: 1 McC. 391; 4 DeS. 708-713.
Messrs. Nicholls Nicholls and Sanders DePass , for respondent, cite: As to mental capacity of grantor: 1 Black on Rescission and Cancellation of Contracts, sec. 262; 14 R.C.L., p. 590; 90 S.C. 207 ; 103 S.C. 450 ; 64 S.C. 272 . As to undue influence: 1 Black on Rescission and Cancellation of Written Contracts, secs. 237, 241, 242, 245; 90 S.C. 215 ; 16 S.C. 344 ; 5 Strob. 190; 9th Cor. Jur. 1180. As to fraud and misrepresentations: 16 S.C. 344 ; 5 Strob. 190; 1 Black on Res. and Can. Written Contracts, sec. 68; 1 Black on Res. and Can. of Contracts, sec. 76; 2d Bail. 269; Rich. 101; 1st Black on Res. and Can. of Cont., sections 110 and 121; 1st Rich., pp. 105-106; 9 S.C. 35 ; 101 S.C. 221 ; 12 R.C.L., p. 255; sec. 109, p. 363; sec. 117; 20 Cyc. 39; 1 Black on Res. and Can. of Con., sections 169, 170, p. 447; secs. 170, 172, 173, 175; 21 S.C. 270 ; 1 Elliott on Contracts, sec. 209, sec. 210; 103 S.C. 538 ; 2 Black on Res. and Can. of contracts, sections 610 and 614; 3 Elliott on Contracts, sections 2429 and 2430; 1 Strob. 400; 88 S.C. 160 ; 192 U.S. 242 ; 4 R.C.L., p. 513; 6 Cyc., p. 312; 2 Black Res. and Can. Con., sections 617 and 630. This Court has time and again sustained the Circuit Judge where he has overruled the master's report: 64 S.C. 256 ; 57 S.C. 218 ; 103 S.C. 450 .
Gary.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.[*407] This is an action to set aside a deed and mortgage. The facts are stated in the report of the master which was in favor of the plaintiff, but was overruled by his Honor, the Circuit Judge; and the plaintiff has appealed.
The issues are discussed at length, both by his Honor, the Circuit Judge, and the master, who differ in their findings upon all the material questions of fact. This Court has reached the conclusion, that the preponderance of the testimony is against the findings of fact by the Circuit Judge, and that he erred in overruling the report of the master.
Reversed.