Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Young v. Warrgreen2 sentences2009Keitz v. National Paving & Contracting Co., 214 Md. 479 , 134 A.2d 296 (1957); see Fernander v. Thigpen, 278 S.C. 140, 144 , 293 S.E.2d 424, 426 (1982) (“The test to determine agency is whether or not the purported principal has the right to control the conduct of his alleged agent.”) (Emphasis theirs); Young v. Warr, 252 S.C. 179, 189 , 165 S.E.2d 797, 802 (1969) (“The general test applied is ... whether there exists the right and authority to control and direct the particular work or undertaking, as to the manner or means of its accomplishment.”); DeBerry v. Coker Freight Lines, 234 S.C. 304 2009Keitz v. National Paving & Contracting Co., 214 Md. 479 , 134 A.2d 296 (1957); see Fernander v. Thigpen, 278 S.C. 140, 144 , 293 S.E.2d 424, 426 (1982) (“The test to determine agency is whether or not the purported principal has the right to control the conduct of his alleged agent.”) (Emphasis theirs); Young v. Warr, 252 S.C. 179, 189 , 165 S.E.2d 797, 802 (1969) (“The general test applied is ... whether there exists the right and authority to control and direct the particular work or undertaking, as to the manner or means of its accomplishment.”); DeBerry v. Coker Freight Lines, 234 S.C. 304 | 2 | 3 |
DeBerry v. Coker Freight Linesgreen2 sentences2009Keitz v. National Paving & Contracting Co., 214 Md. 479 , 134 A.2d 296 (1957); see Fernander v. Thigpen, 278 S.C. 140, 144 , 293 S.E.2d 424, 426 (1982) (“The test to determine agency is whether or not the purported principal has the right to control the conduct of his alleged agent.”) (Emphasis theirs); Young v. Warr, 252 S.C. 179, 189 , 165 S.E.2d 797, 802 (1969) (“The general test applied is ... whether there exists the right and authority to control and direct the particular work or undertaking, as to the manner or means of its accomplishment.”); DeBerry v. Coker Freight Lines, 234 S.C. 304 2009Keitz v. National Paving & Contracting Co., 214 Md. 479 , 134 A.2d 296 (1957); see Fernander v. Thigpen, 278 S.C. 140, 144 , 293 S.E.2d 424, 426 (1982) (“The test to determine agency is whether or not the purported principal has the right to control the conduct of his alleged agent.”) (Emphasis theirs); Young v. Warr, 252 S.C. 179, 189 , 165 S.E.2d 797, 802 (1969) (“The general test applied is ... whether there exists the right and authority to control and direct the particular work or undertaking, as to the manner or means of its accomplishment.”); DeBerry v. Coker Freight Lines, 234 S.C. 304 | 2 | 2 |
Fernander v. Thigpengreen2 sentences2009Keitz v. National Paving & Contracting Co., 214 Md. 479 , 134 A.2d 296 (1957); see Fernander v. Thigpen, 278 S.C. 140, 144 , 293 S.E.2d 424, 426 (1982) (“The test to determine agency is whether or not the purported principal has the right to control the conduct of his alleged agent.”) (Emphasis theirs); Young v. Warr, 252 S.C. 179, 189 , 165 S.E.2d 797, 802 (1969) (“The general test applied is ... whether there exists the right and authority to control and direct the particular work or undertaking, as to the manner or means of its accomplishment.”); DeBerry v. Coker Freight Lines, 234 S.C. 304 2009Keitz v. National Paving & Contracting Co., 214 Md. 479 , 134 A.2d 296 (1957); see Fernander v. Thigpen, 278 S.C. 140, 144 , 293 S.E.2d 424, 426 (1982) (“The test to determine agency is whether or not the purported principal has the right to control the conduct of his alleged agent.”) (Emphasis theirs); Young v. Warr, 252 S.C. 179, 189 , 165 S.E.2d 797, 802 (1969) (“The general test applied is ... whether there exists the right and authority to control and direct the particular work or undertaking, as to the manner or means of its accomplishment.”); DeBerry v. Coker Freight Lines, 234 S.C. 304 | 2 | 2 |
Jamison v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2010See Jamison v. Morris, 385 S.C. 215, 221 , 684 S.E.2d 168, 171 (2009) (“The decisive test in determining whether the *189 relation of master and servant exists is whether the purported master has the right or power to direct and control the servant in the performance of his work and in the manner in which the work is to be done.”). 2010See Jamison v. Morris, 385 S.C. 215, 221 , 684 S.E.2d 168, 171 (2009) (“The decisive test in determining whether the *189 relation of master and servant exists is whether the purported master has the right or power to direct and control the servant in the performance of his work and in the manner in which the work is to be done.”). | 1 | 1 |
Felts v. Richland Countygreen2 sentences1991“The decisive test in determining whether the relation of master and servant [or employer and employee] exists is whether the purported master [or employer] has the right or power to direct and control the servant [or employee] in the performance of [the] work and in the manner in which the work is to be done.” Felts v. Richland County, 299 S.C. 214, 217 , 383 S.E. (2d) 261, 263 (Ct. App. 1989). 1991“The decisive test in determining whether the relation of master and servant [or employer and employee] exists is whether the purported master [or employer] has the right or power to direct and control the servant [or employee] in the performance of [the] work and in the manner in which the work is to be done.” Felts v. Richland County, 299 S.C. 214, 217 , 383 S.E. (2d) 261, 263 (Ct. App. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Keitz v. National Paving & Contracting Co.
green
2 sentences2009Keitz v. National Paving & Contracting Co., 214 Md. 479 , 134 A.2d 296 (1957); see Fernander v. Thigpen, 278 S.C. 140, 144 , 293 S.E.2d 424, 426 (1982) (“The test to determine agency is whether or not the purported principal has the right to control the conduct of his alleged agent.”) (Emphasis theirs); Young v. Warr, 252 S.C. 179, 189 , 165 S.E.2d 797, 802 (1969) (“The general test applied is ... whether there exists the right and authority to control and direct the particular work or undertaking, as to the manner or means of its accomplishment.”); DeBerry v. Coker Freight Lines, 234 S.C. 304 2009Keitz v. National Paving & Contracting Co., 214 Md. 479 , 134 A.2d 296 (1957); see Fernander v. Thigpen, 278 S.C. 140, 144 , 293 S.E.2d 424, 426 (1982) (“The test to determine agency is whether or not the purported principal has the right to control the conduct of his alleged agent.”) (Emphasis theirs); Young v. Warr, 252 S.C. 179, 189 , 165 S.E.2d 797, 802 (1969) (“The general test applied is ... whether there exists the right and authority to control and direct the particular work or undertaking, as to the manner or means of its accomplishment.”); DeBerry v. Coker Freight Lines, 234 S.C. 304 | 2 | 1986–2009 |
Watkins v. Mobil Oil Corp.
green
1 sentence1989Young v. Warr, 252 S. C. 179, 165 S. E. (2d) 797 (1969); Watkins v. Mobil Oil Corp., 291 S. C. 62, 352 S. E. (2d) 284 (Ct. App. 1986). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.