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.
6 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1946–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2025The fact that the delegation clause did not send disputes about the arbitration clause's validity to the arbitrator was a critical and meaningful distinction from a key precedent involving a delegation clause that gave the arbitrator "the exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the 'enforceability' of the agreement 'including . . . any claim that all or any part of th[e] [a]greement [was] void or voidable.'" Id. at 609, 846 S.E.2d at 877 (first and third alterations in original) (quoting Rent-A-Ctr., 561 U.S. at 68); see also Rent-A-Ctr., 561 U.S. at 72 (explaining that without 2025The fact that the delegation clause did not send disputes about the arbitration clause's validity to the arbitrator was a critical and meaningful distinction from a key precedent involving a delegation clause that gave the arbitrator "the exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the 'enforceability' of the agreement 'including . . . any claim that all or any part of th[e] [a]greement [was] void or voidable.'" Id. at 609, 846 S.E.2d at 877 (first and third alterations in original) (quoting Rent-A-Ctr., 561 U.S. at 68); see also Rent-A-Ctr., 561 U.S. at 72 (explaining that without | 4 | 4 |
Jane Doe v. TCSC, LLCgreen2 sentences2025If there is a delegation clause, a court retains its ability to determine the validity of that clause only if "the party resisting arbitration has made a direct and discrete challenge to the validity and enforceability of the delegation clause specifically, rather than the arbitration agreement as a whole." Doe, 430 S.C. at 608, 846 S.E.2d at 877. 2025If there is a delegation clause, a court retains its ability to determine the validity of that clause only if "the party resisting arbitration has made a direct and discrete challenge to the validity and enforceability of the delegation clause specifically, rather than the arbitration agreement as a whole." Doe, 430 S.C. at 608, 846 S.E.2d at 877. | 3 | 3 |
Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.green2 sentences2025See First S. Bank v. Rosenberg, 418 S.C. 170, 180 , 790 S.E.2d 919, 925 (Ct. App. 2016) ("The cardinal rule of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties and, in determining that intention, the court looks to the language of the contract." (quoting Watson v. Underwood, 407 S.C. 443 , 454–55, 756 S.E.2d 155, 161 (Ct. App. 2014)); see also Henry Schein, 586 U.S. at 68 ("We must interpret the [FAA] as written, and the [FAA] in turn requires that we interpret the contract as written. 2020Grp., 386 S.C. 488, 491 , 689 S.E.2d 602, 603 (2010))); see also New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532, 538 (2019) ("A delegation clause gives an arbitrator authority to decide even the initial question [of] whether the parties' dispute is subject to arbitration."); Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 528 (2019) ("When the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties' decision as embodied in the contract."); Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 , 68–69, 69 n.1 (2010) (stating that partie | 2 | 2 |
First South Bank v. Rosenberggreen2 sentences2025See First S. Bank v. Rosenberg, 418 S.C. 170, 180 , 790 S.E.2d 919, 925 (Ct. App. 2016) ("The cardinal rule of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties and, in determining that intention, the court looks to the language of the contract." (quoting Watson v. Underwood, 407 S.C. 443 , 454–55, 756 S.E.2d 155, 161 (Ct. App. 2014)); see also Henry Schein, 586 U.S. at 68 ("We must interpret the [FAA] as written, and the [FAA] in turn requires that we interpret the contract as written. 2025See First S. Bank v. Rosenberg, 418 S.C. 170, 180 , 790 S.E.2d 919, 925 (Ct. App. 2016) ("The cardinal rule of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties and, in determining that intention, the court looks to the language of the contract." (quoting Watson v. Underwood, 407 S.C. 443 , 454–55, 756 S.E.2d 155, 161 (Ct. App. 2014)); see also Henry Schein, 586 U.S. at 68 ("We must interpret the [FAA] as written, and the [FAA] in turn requires that we interpret the contract as written. | 1 | 1 |
Watson v. Underwoodgreen2 sentences2025See First S. Bank v. Rosenberg, 418 S.C. 170, 180 , 790 S.E.2d 919, 925 (Ct. App. 2016) ("The cardinal rule of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties and, in determining that intention, the court looks to the language of the contract." (quoting Watson v. Underwood, 407 S.C. 443 , 454–55, 756 S.E.2d 155, 161 (Ct. App. 2014)); see also Henry Schein, 586 U.S. at 68 ("We must interpret the [FAA] as written, and the [FAA] in turn requires that we interpret the contract as written. 2025See First S. Bank v. Rosenberg, 418 S.C. 170, 180 , 790 S.E.2d 919, 925 (Ct. App. 2016) ("The cardinal rule of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties and, in determining that intention, the court looks to the language of the contract." (quoting Watson v. Underwood, 407 S.C. 443 , 454–55, 756 S.E.2d 155, 161 (Ct. App. 2014)); see also Henry Schein, 586 U.S. at 68 ("We must interpret the [FAA] as written, and the [FAA] in turn requires that we interpret the contract as written. | 1 | 1 |
Zabinski v. Bright Acres Associatesgreen2 sentences2024Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S. at 70; see e.g., Zabinski, 346 S.C. at 592 , 553 S.E.2d at 116 ("While the parties may agree to enforce arbitration agreements under state rules rather than FAA rules, the FAA will preempt any state law that completely invalidates the parties' agreement to arbitrate."). 2024Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S. at 70; see e.g., Zabinski, 346 S.C. at 592 , 553 S.E.2d at 116 ("While the parties may agree to enforce arbitration agreements under state rules rather than FAA rules, the FAA will preempt any state law that completely invalidates the parties' agreement to arbitrate."). | 1 | 1 |
New Prime Inc. v. Oliveiragreen1 sentence2020Grp., 386 S.C. 488, 491 , 689 S.E.2d 602, 603 (2010))); see also New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532, 538 (2019) ("A delegation clause gives an arbitrator authority to decide even the initial question [of] whether the parties' dispute is subject to arbitration."); Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 528 (2019) ("When the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties' decision as embodied in the contract."); Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 , 68–69, 69 n.1 (2010) (stating that partie | 1 | 1 |
Partain v. Upstate Automotive Groupgreen2 sentences2020Grp., 386 S.C. 488, 491 , 689 S.E.2d 602, 603 (2010))); see also New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532, 538 (2019) ("A delegation clause gives an arbitrator authority to decide even the initial question [of] whether the parties' dispute is subject to arbitration."); Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 528 (2019) ("When the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties' decision as embodied in the contract."); Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 , 68–69, 69 n.1 (2010) (stating that partie 2020Grp., 386 S.C. 488, 491 , 689 S.E.2d 602, 603 (2010))); see also New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532, 538 (2019) ("A delegation clause gives an arbitrator authority to decide even the initial question [of] whether the parties' dispute is subject to arbitration."); Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 528 (2019) ("When the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties' decision as embodied in the contract."); Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 , 68–69, 69 n.1 (2010) (stating that partie | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Banks v. Batesburg Hauling Co.
green
1 sentence1946Our last adjudication upon the point is Banks v. Batesburg Hauling Co., 202 S. C., 273, 24 S. E. (2d), 496 , in which the questioned rule was held valid and the legislative authorization therefor not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
State Ex Rel. Daniel, At. Gen. v. Wells
green
1 sentence1946Ed., 744 ; Leser v. Lowenstein, 129 Md., 244 , 98 Atl., 712 .” There are other interesting decisions from this court upon the subject and none recent has been brought to our attention in which the delegation of rule-making power to an administrative agency or a rule itself, has been held invalid except State v. Wells, 191 S. C., 468, 5 S. E. (2d), 181 . | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Leser v. Lowenstein
green
2 sentences1946Ed., 744 ; Leser v. Lowenstein, 129 Md., 244 , 98 Atl., 712 .” There are other interesting decisions from this court upon the subject and none recent has been brought to our attention in which the delegation of rule-making power to an administrative agency or a rule itself, has been held invalid except State v. Wells, 191 S. C., 468, 5 S. E. (2d), 181 . 1946Ed., 744 ; Leser v. Lowenstein, 129 Md., 244 , 98 Atl., 712 .” There are other interesting decisions from this court upon the subject and none recent has been brought to our attention in which the delegation of rule-making power to an administrative agency or a rule itself, has been held invalid except State v. Wells, 191 S. C., 468, 5 S. E. (2d), 181 . | 1 | 1946–1946 |
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.