sentence clause in South Carolina

2017Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 623 , 550 S.E.2d 299 , 302–03 (2001) (finding that whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court); Williams, 409 S.C. at 595 , 762 S.E.2d at 710 ("A contract is read as a whole document so that one may not create an ambiguity by pointing out a single sentence or clause." (quoting McGill, 381 S.C. at 185 , 672 S.E.2d at 574 )); id. ("Whether a contract is ambiguous is to be determined from examining the entire contract, not by reviewing isolated portions of the contract."); Dawsey, 371 S.C. at 356 , 638 S.E.2d at

2017Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 623 , 550 S.E.2d 299 , 302–03 (2001) (finding that whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court); Williams, 409 S.C. at 595 , 762 S.E.2d at 710 ("A contract is read as a whole document so that one may not create an ambiguity by pointing out a single sentence or clause." (quoting McGill, 381 S.C. at 185 , 672 S.E.2d at 574 )); id. ("Whether a contract is ambiguous is to be determined from examining the entire contract, not by reviewing isolated portions of the contract."); Dawsey, 371 S.C. at 356 , 638 S.E.2d at

1999Co., 311 S.C. 369, 371 , 429 S.E.2d 194, 196 (Ct.App.), modified, 312 S.C. 210 , 439 S.E.2d 836 (1993) (internal citations omitted).

1999Co., 311 S.C. 369, 371 , 429 S.E.2d 194, 196 (Ct.App.), modified, 312 S.C. 210 , 439 S.E.2d 836 (1993) (internal citations omitted).

2013As to Wilson's assertions the special referee erred in holding he failed to notify Butler of his intent not to renew the lease and the doctrine of laches bars Butler's claim: Silver v. Aabstract Pools & Spas, Inc., 376 S.C. 585, 591 , 658 S.E.2d 539, 542 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law to be determined by the court by examining the entire contract and not merely whether certain phrases taken in isolation could be interpreted in more than one way, and stating "[o]ne may not, by pointing out a single sentence or clause, create an ambi

2013As to Wilson's assertions the special referee erred in holding he failed to notify Butler of his intent not to renew the lease and the doctrine of laches bars Butler's claim: Silver v. Aabstract Pools & Spas, Inc., 376 S.C. 585, 591 , 658 S.E.2d 539, 542 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law to be determined by the court by examining the entire contract and not merely whether certain phrases taken in isolation could be interpreted in more than one way, and stating "[o]ne may not, by pointing out a single sentence or clause, create an ambi

2017Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 623 , 550 S.E.2d 299 , 302–03 (2001) (finding that whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court); Williams, 409 S.C. at 595 , 762 S.E.2d at 710 ("A contract is read as a whole document so that one may not create an ambiguity by pointing out a single sentence or clause." (quoting McGill, 381 S.C. at 185 , 672 S.E.2d at 574 )); id. ("Whether a contract is ambiguous is to be determined from examining the entire contract, not by reviewing isolated portions of the contract."); Dawsey, 371 S.C. at 356 , 638 S.E.2d at

2017Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 623 , 550 S.E.2d 299 , 302–03 (2001) (finding that whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court); Williams, 409 S.C. at 595 , 762 S.E.2d at 710 ("A contract is read as a whole document so that one may not create an ambiguity by pointing out a single sentence or clause." (quoting McGill, 381 S.C. at 185 , 672 S.E.2d at 574 )); id. ("Whether a contract is ambiguous is to be determined from examining the entire contract, not by reviewing isolated portions of the contract."); Dawsey, 371 S.C. at 356 , 638 S.E.2d at

2025See Snow v. Smith, 416 S.C. 72, 85 , 784 S.E.2d 242, 248 (Ct. App. 2016) ("When a deed is unambiguous, any attempt to determine the grantor's intent when reserving the easement must be limited to the deed itself, and using extrinsic evidence to contradict the plain language of the deed is improper."); Madden v. Bent Palm Invs., LLC, 386 S.C. 459, 465 , 688 S.E.2d 597, 600 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A party may not create an ambiguity by reading a single sentence or clause, but rather the contract and the language used must be considered as a whole."); Klutts Resort Realty, Inc. v. Down'Round Dev.

2025See Snow v. Smith, 416 S.C. 72, 85 , 784 S.E.2d 242, 248 (Ct. App. 2016) ("When a deed is unambiguous, any attempt to determine the grantor's intent when reserving the easement must be limited to the deed itself, and using extrinsic evidence to contradict the plain language of the deed is improper."); Madden v. Bent Palm Invs., LLC, 386 S.C. 459, 465 , 688 S.E.2d 597, 600 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A party may not create an ambiguity by reading a single sentence or clause, but rather the contract and the language used must be considered as a whole."); Klutts Resort Realty, Inc. v. Down'Round Dev.

2025See Snow v. Smith, 416 S.C. 72, 85 , 784 S.E.2d 242, 248 (Ct. App. 2016) ("When a deed is unambiguous, any attempt to determine the grantor's intent when reserving the easement must be limited to the deed itself, and using extrinsic evidence to contradict the plain language of the deed is improper."); Madden v. Bent Palm Invs., LLC, 386 S.C. 459, 465 , 688 S.E.2d 597, 600 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A party may not create an ambiguity by reading a single sentence or clause, but rather the contract and the language used must be considered as a whole."); Klutts Resort Realty, Inc. v. Down'Round Dev.

2025See Snow v. Smith, 416 S.C. 72, 85 , 784 S.E.2d 242, 248 (Ct. App. 2016) ("When a deed is unambiguous, any attempt to determine the grantor's intent when reserving the easement must be limited to the deed itself, and using extrinsic evidence to contradict the plain language of the deed is improper."); Madden v. Bent Palm Invs., LLC, 386 S.C. 459, 465 , 688 S.E.2d 597, 600 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A party may not create an ambiguity by reading a single sentence or clause, but rather the contract and the language used must be considered as a whole."); Klutts Resort Realty, Inc. v. Down'Round Dev.

2025Corp., 268 S.C. 80, 88 , 232 S.E.2d 20, 24 (1977) ("[W]here instruments are executed at the same time, by the same parties, for the same purpose, and in the course of the same transaction, the courts will consider and construe the instruments together.").

2025Corp., 268 S.C. 80, 88 , 232 S.E.2d 20, 24 (1977) ("[W]here instruments are executed at the same time, by the same parties, for the same purpose, and in the course of the same transaction, the courts will consider and construe the instruments together.").

2023In Simmons v. State, this Court indirectly distinguished constitutional PCR claims and claims that the parties could have addressed before trial, during trial, or on direct appeal. 264 S.C. 417, 423 , 215 S.E.2d 883, 885 (1975) ("Errors in a petitioner's trial which could have been reviewed on appeal may not be asserted for the first time, or reasserted, in post-conviction proceedings." (citations omitted)).

2023In Simmons v. State, this Court indirectly distinguished constitutional PCR claims and claims that the parties could have addressed before trial, during trial, or on direct appeal. 264 S.C. 417, 423 , 215 S.E.2d 883, 885 (1975) ("Errors in a petitioner's trial which could have been reviewed on appeal may not be asserted for the first time, or reasserted, in post-conviction proceedings." (citations omitted)).

2017Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 623 , 550 S.E.2d 299 , 302–03 (2001) (finding that whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court); Williams, 409 S.C. at 595 , 762 S.E.2d at 710 ("A contract is read as a whole document so that one may not create an ambiguity by pointing out a single sentence or clause." (quoting McGill, 381 S.C. at 185 , 672 S.E.2d at 574 )); id. ("Whether a contract is ambiguous is to be determined from examining the entire contract, not by reviewing isolated portions of the contract."); Dawsey, 371 S.C. at 356 , 638 S.E.2d at

2017Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 623 , 550 S.E.2d 299 , 302–03 (2001) (finding that whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court); Williams, 409 S.C. at 595 , 762 S.E.2d at 710 ("A contract is read as a whole document so that one may not create an ambiguity by pointing out a single sentence or clause." (quoting McGill, 381 S.C. at 185 , 672 S.E.2d at 574 )); id. ("Whether a contract is ambiguous is to be determined from examining the entire contract, not by reviewing isolated portions of the contract."); Dawsey, 371 S.C. at 356 , 638 S.E.2d at

2017Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 623 , 550 S.E.2d 299 , 302–03 (2001) (finding that whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court); Williams, 409 S.C. at 595 , 762 S.E.2d at 710 ("A contract is read as a whole document so that one may not create an ambiguity by pointing out a single sentence or clause." (quoting McGill, 381 S.C. at 185 , 672 S.E.2d at 574 )); id. ("Whether a contract is ambiguous is to be determined from examining the entire contract, not by reviewing isolated portions of the contract."); Dawsey, 371 S.C. at 356 , 638 S.E.2d at

2017Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 623 , 550 S.E.2d 299 , 302–03 (2001) (finding that whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court); Williams, 409 S.C. at 595 , 762 S.E.2d at 710 ("A contract is read as a whole document so that one may not create an ambiguity by pointing out a single sentence or clause." (quoting McGill, 381 S.C. at 185 , 672 S.E.2d at 574 )); id. ("Whether a contract is ambiguous is to be determined from examining the entire contract, not by reviewing isolated portions of the contract."); Dawsey, 371 S.C. at 356 , 638 S.E.2d at

2015As to whether the trial court erred in denying Gregorie's motion for summary judgment: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (noting an appellate court need not address appellant's remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive).

2015As to whether the trial court erred in denying Gregorie's motion for summary judgment: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (noting an appellate court need not address appellant's remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive).

2015Owners Ass'n v. Pelzer, 292 S.C. 343, 347 , 356 S.E.2d 411, 414 (Ct. App. 1987))); McGill v. Moore, 381 S.C. 179, 185 , 672 S.E.2d 571, 574 (2009) ("The cardinal rule of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give legal effect to the parties' intentions as determined by the contract language."); id. ("A contract is read as a whole document so that one may not create an ambiguity by pointing out a single sentence or clause."); Stevens Aviation, Inc. v. DynCorp Int'l LLC, 394 S.C. 300, 307-08 , 715 S.E.2d 655, 659 (Ct. App. 2011) ("To incorporate the terms of extrinsic material, a contract

2015Owners Ass'n v. Pelzer, 292 S.C. 343, 347 , 356 S.E.2d 411, 414 (Ct. App. 1987))); McGill v. Moore, 381 S.C. 179, 185 , 672 S.E.2d 571, 574 (2009) ("The cardinal rule of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give legal effect to the parties' intentions as determined by the contract language."); id. ("A contract is read as a whole document so that one may not create an ambiguity by pointing out a single sentence or clause."); Stevens Aviation, Inc. v. DynCorp Int'l LLC, 394 S.C. 300, 307-08 , 715 S.E.2d 655, 659 (Ct. App. 2011) ("To incorporate the terms of extrinsic material, a contract

2015Owners Ass'n v. Pelzer, 292 S.C. 343, 347 , 356 S.E.2d 411, 414 (Ct. App. 1987))); McGill v. Moore, 381 S.C. 179, 185 , 672 S.E.2d 571, 574 (2009) ("The cardinal rule of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give legal effect to the parties' intentions as determined by the contract language."); id. ("A contract is read as a whole document so that one may not create an ambiguity by pointing out a single sentence or clause."); Stevens Aviation, Inc. v. DynCorp Int'l LLC, 394 S.C. 300, 307-08 , 715 S.E.2d 655, 659 (Ct. App. 2011) ("To incorporate the terms of extrinsic material, a contract

2015Owners Ass'n v. Pelzer, 292 S.C. 343, 347 , 356 S.E.2d 411, 414 (Ct. App. 1987))); McGill v. Moore, 381 S.C. 179, 185 , 672 S.E.2d 571, 574 (2009) ("The cardinal rule of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give legal effect to the parties' intentions as determined by the contract language."); id. ("A contract is read as a whole document so that one may not create an ambiguity by pointing out a single sentence or clause."); Stevens Aviation, Inc. v. DynCorp Int'l LLC, 394 S.C. 300, 307-08 , 715 S.E.2d 655, 659 (Ct. App. 2011) ("To incorporate the terms of extrinsic material, a contract

2011Inc. v. Middleton, 356 S.C. 444, 447 , 590 S.E.2d 27, 29 (2003) (finding a contract should be read as a whole document so that “one may *22 not, by pointing out a single sentence or clause, create an ambiguity”).

2011Inc. v. Middleton, 356 S.C. 444, 447 , 590 S.E.2d 27, 29 (2003) (finding a contract should be read as a whole document so that “one may *22 not, by pointing out a single sentence or clause, create an ambiguity”).

2011Co., 266 S.C. 584, 592 , 225 S.E.2d 344, 348 (1976).

2011Co., 266 S.C. 584, 592 , 225 S.E.2d 344, 348 (1976).

2010We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Gaster , 349 S.C. 545, 552 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 91 (2002) (holding constitutional issues must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to preserve the issues for appellate review).

2010We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Gaster , 349 S.C. 545, 552 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 91 (2002) (holding constitutional issues must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to preserve the issues for appellate review).

2009"The determination of whether to revoke probation in whole or in part rests within the sound discretion of the trial court." State v. Allen , 370 S.C. 88, 94 , 634 S.E.2d 653, 655 (2006); S.C.

2009"The determination of whether to revoke probation in whole or in part rests within the sound discretion of the trial court." State v. Allen , 370 S.C. 88, 94 , 634 S.E.2d 653, 655 (2006); S.C.

1989“Whether a contract is ambiguous is to be determined from the entire contract and not from isolated portions of the contract.” Farr v. Duke Power Co., 265 S. C. 356, 362, 218 S. E. (2d) 431, 433 (1975). “[I]n construing an insurance contract, all of its provisions should be considered, and one may not, by pointing out a single sentence or clause, create an ambiguity.” Yarborough v. Phoenix Mut.