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.
30 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lewis v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2026See Lewis, 392 S.C. at 389 , 709 S.E.2d at 654 (emphasizing "de novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court"). 2026See Lewis, 392 S.C. at 389 , 709 S.E.2d at 654 (emphasizing "de novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court"). | 15 | 26 |
Simmons v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2019We affirm.1 "[O]n appeal[] from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo." Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011). "[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court." S.C. 2019We affirm.1 "[O]n appeal[] from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo." Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011). "[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court." S.C. | 6 | 6 |
Abate v. Abategreen2 sentences2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar 2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar | 2 | 2 |
Messer v. Messergreen2 sentences2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar 2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar | 2 | 2 |
Tirado v. Tiradogreen2 sentences2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar 2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar | 2 | 2 |
Stoney v. SRgreen2 sentences2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar 2019See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting this court is "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative | 2 | 2 |
Crossland v. Crosslandgreen2 sentences2016As to whether the family court erred in awarding Wife only $4,000 per month in alimony: Crossland v. Crossland, 408 S.C. 443, 451 , 759 S.E.2d 419, 423 (2014) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Mick-Skaggs v. Skaggs, 411 S.C. 94, 101 , 766 S.E.2d 870, 873 (Ct. App. 2014) (stating de novo review does not relieve an appellant of demonstrating error or require the reviewing court to ignore the findings of the family court); Browder v. Browder, 382 S.C. 512, 519 , 675 S.E.2d 820, 823 (Ct. App. 2009) (noting if a claim is well founded, the 2016As to whether the family court erred in awarding Wife only $4,000 per month in alimony: Crossland v. Crossland, 408 S.C. 443, 451 , 759 S.E.2d 419, 423 (2014) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Mick-Skaggs v. Skaggs, 411 S.C. 94, 101 , 766 S.E.2d 870, 873 (Ct. App. 2014) (stating de novo review does not relieve an appellant of demonstrating error or require the reviewing court to ignore the findings of the family court); Browder v. Browder, 382 S.C. 512, 519 , 675 S.E.2d 820, 823 (Ct. App. 2009) (noting if a claim is well founded, the | 2 | 2 |
Lucas v. Lucasgreen2 sentences2014See Lewis, 392 S.C. at 389 , 709 S.E.2d at 654 (“[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court.”); see also Lucas v. Lucas, 279 S.C. 121, 123 , 302 S.E.2d 863, 864 (1983) (finding it was within the family court’s discretion to deny a divorce on one ground and grant it on another ground). 2014See Lewis, 392 S.C. at 389 , 709 S.E.2d at 654 (“[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court.”); see also Lucas v. Lucas, 279 S.C. 121, 123 , 302 S.E.2d 863, 864 (1983) (finding it was within the family court’s discretion to deny a divorce on one ground and grant it on another ground). | 2 | 2 |
Mick-Skaggs v. Skaggsgreen2 sentences2016As to whether the family court erred in awarding Wife only $4,000 per month in alimony: Crossland v. Crossland, 408 S.C. 443, 451 , 759 S.E.2d 419, 423 (2014) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Mick-Skaggs v. Skaggs, 411 S.C. 94, 101 , 766 S.E.2d 870, 873 (Ct. App. 2014) (stating de novo review does not relieve an appellant of demonstrating error or require the reviewing court to ignore the findings of the family court); Browder v. Browder, 382 S.C. 512, 519 , 675 S.E.2d 820, 823 (Ct. App. 2009) (noting if a claim is well founded, the 2016As to whether the family court erred in awarding Wife only $4,000 per month in alimony: Crossland v. Crossland, 408 S.C. 443, 451 , 759 S.E.2d 419, 423 (2014) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Mick-Skaggs v. Skaggs, 411 S.C. 94, 101 , 766 S.E.2d 870, 873 (Ct. App. 2014) (stating de novo review does not relieve an appellant of demonstrating error or require the reviewing court to ignore the findings of the family court); Browder v. Browder, 382 S.C. 512, 519 , 675 S.E.2d 820, 823 (Ct. App. 2009) (noting if a claim is well founded, the | 1 | 2 |
Hollis v. Stonington Development, LLCgreen2 sentences2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar 2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar | 1 | 1 |
Noojin v. Noojingreen2 sentences2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar 2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar | 1 | 1 |
Eaddy v. Olivergreen2 sentences2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar 2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar | 1 | 1 |
DiMarco v. DiMarcogreen2 sentences2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar 2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 708 S.E.2d 650 , 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting appellate courts are "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign compar | 1 | 1 |
Brasington v. Shannongreen2 sentences2019See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting this court is "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative 2019See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting this court is "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative | 1 | 1 |
Smith-Cooper v. Coopergreen2 sentences2019See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting this court is "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative 2019See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting this court is "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative | 1 | 1 |
Henderson v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2019See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting this court is "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative 2019See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting this court is "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative | 1 | 1 |
Poston v. Postongreen2 sentences2019See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting this court is "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative 2019See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires [this court] to ignore the findings of the family court."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 620 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 314 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting this court is "mindful that the [family court], who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative | 1 | 1 |
Browder v. Browdergreen2 sentences2016As to whether the family court erred in awarding Wife only $4,000 per month in alimony: Crossland v. Crossland, 408 S.C. 443, 451 , 759 S.E.2d 419, 423 (2014) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Mick-Skaggs v. Skaggs, 411 S.C. 94, 101 , 766 S.E.2d 870, 873 (Ct. App. 2014) (stating de novo review does not relieve an appellant of demonstrating error or require the reviewing court to ignore the findings of the family court); Browder v. Browder, 382 S.C. 512, 519 , 675 S.E.2d 820, 823 (Ct. App. 2009) (noting if a claim is well founded, the 2016As to whether the family court erred in awarding Wife only $4,000 per month in alimony: Crossland v. Crossland, 408 S.C. 443, 451 , 759 S.E.2d 419, 423 (2014) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Mick-Skaggs v. Skaggs, 411 S.C. 94, 101 , 766 S.E.2d 870, 873 (Ct. App. 2014) (stating de novo review does not relieve an appellant of demonstrating error or require the reviewing court to ignore the findings of the family court); Browder v. Browder, 382 S.C. 512, 519 , 675 S.E.2d 820, 823 (Ct. App. 2009) (noting if a claim is well founded, the | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Browngreen2 sentences2015See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011) ("[W]hile retaining the authority to make our own findings of fact, we recognize the superior position of the family court judge in making credibility determinations." (footnote omitted)); Simcox-Adams v. Adams, 408 S.C. 252 , 259- 60, 758 S.E.2d 206, 210 (Ct. App. 2014) ("The burden is upon the appellant to convince the appellate court that the preponderance of the evi 2015See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011) ("[W]hile retaining the authority to make our own findings of fact, we recognize the superior position of the family court judge in making credibility determinations." (footnote omitted)); Simcox-Adams v. Adams, 408 S.C. 252 , 259- 60, 758 S.E.2d 206, 210 (Ct. App. 2014) ("The burden is upon the appellant to convince the appellate court that the preponderance of the evi | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Greengreen2 sentences2015Code Ann. § 20-3-620 (C) (2014) ("The [family] court's order as it affects distribution of marital property shall be a final order not subject to modification except by appeal or remand following proper appeal."); Simpson v. Simpson, 404 S.C. 563, 571 , 746 S.E.2d 54, 58-59 (Ct. App. 2013) ("[T]he law in South Carolina is exceedingly clear that the family court does not have the authority to modify court ordered property divisions." (quoting Green v. Green, 327 S.C. 577, 581 , 491 S.E.2d 260, 262 (Ct. App. 1997))). 2015Code Ann. § 20-3-620 (C) (2014) ("The [family] court's order as it affects distribution of marital property shall be a final order not subject to modification except by appeal or remand following proper appeal."); Simpson v. Simpson, 404 S.C. 563, 571 , 746 S.E.2d 54, 58-59 (Ct. App. 2013) ("[T]he law in South Carolina is exceedingly clear that the family court does not have the authority to modify court ordered property divisions." (quoting Green v. Green, 327 S.C. 577, 581 , 491 S.E.2d 260, 262 (Ct. App. 1997))). | 1 | 1 |
Gaffney v. Gaffneygreen2 sentences2015See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Gaffney, 401 S.C. at 221 , 736 S.E.2d at 686 ("The burden is upon the appellant to convince the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) (stating "de novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court"); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 378 S.C. 523, 2015See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Gaffney, 401 S.C. at 221 , 736 S.E.2d at 686 ("The burden is upon the appellant to convince the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) (stating "de novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court"); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 378 S.C. 523, | 1 | 1 |
Simpson v. Simpsongreen2 sentences2015Code Ann. § 20-3-620 (C) (2014) ("The [family] court's order as it affects distribution of marital property shall be a final order not subject to modification except by appeal or remand following proper appeal."); Simpson v. Simpson, 404 S.C. 563, 571 , 746 S.E.2d 54, 58-59 (Ct. App. 2013) ("[T]he law in South Carolina is exceedingly clear that the family court does not have the authority to modify court ordered property divisions." (quoting Green v. Green, 327 S.C. 577, 581 , 491 S.E.2d 260, 262 (Ct. App. 1997))). 2015Code Ann. § 20-3-620 (C) (2014) ("The [family] court's order as it affects distribution of marital property shall be a final order not subject to modification except by appeal or remand following proper appeal."); Simpson v. Simpson, 404 S.C. 563, 571 , 746 S.E.2d 54, 58-59 (Ct. App. 2013) ("[T]he law in South Carolina is exceedingly clear that the family court does not have the authority to modify court ordered property divisions." (quoting Green v. Green, 327 S.C. 577, 581 , 491 S.E.2d 260, 262 (Ct. App. 1997))). | 1 | 1 |
Simcox-Adams v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2015See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011) ("[W]hile retaining the authority to make our own findings of fact, we recognize the superior position of the family court judge in making credibility determinations." (footnote omitted)); Simcox-Adams v. Adams, 408 S.C. 252 , 259- 60, 758 S.E.2d 206, 210 (Ct. App. 2014) ("The burden is upon the appellant to convince the appellate court that the preponderance of the evi 2015See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011) ("[W]hile retaining the authority to make our own findings of fact, we recognize the superior position of the family court judge in making credibility determinations." (footnote omitted)); Simcox-Adams v. Adams, 408 S.C. 252 , 259- 60, 758 S.E.2d 206, 210 (Ct. App. 2014) ("The burden is upon the appellant to convince the appellate court that the preponderance of the evi | 1 | 1 |
Mattox v. Cassadygreen2 sentences2015See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Gaffney, 401 S.C. at 221 , 736 S.E.2d at 686 ("The burden is upon the appellant to convince the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) (stating "de novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court"); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 378 S.C. 523, 2015See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Gaffney, 401 S.C. at 221 , 736 S.E.2d at 686 ("The burden is upon the appellant to convince the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) (stating "de novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court"); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 378 S.C. 523, | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Millergreen2 sentences2015As to whether the family court erred in finding Judy in contempt for failing to attend mediation and not finding James in contempt for failing to maintain a required life insurance policy: Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, [an appellate court] reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011) ("[W]hile retaining the authority to make our own findings of fact, we recognize the superior position of the family court . . . in making credibility determinations." (footnote o 2015As to whether the family court erred in finding Judy in contempt for failing to attend mediation and not finding James in contempt for failing to maintain a required life insurance policy: Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, [an appellate court] reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011) ("[W]hile retaining the authority to make our own findings of fact, we recognize the superior position of the family court . . . in making credibility determinations." (footnote o | 1 | 1 |
Lacke v. Lackegreen2 sentences2015See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Gaffney, 401 S.C. at 221 , 736 S.E.2d at 686 ("The burden is upon the appellant to convince the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) (stating "de novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court"); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 378 S.C. 523, 2015See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Gaffney, 401 S.C. at 221 , 736 S.E.2d at 686 ("The burden is upon the appellant to convince the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) (stating "de novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court"); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 378 S.C. 523, | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Davisgreen2 sentences2015See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Gaffney, 401 S.C. at 221 , 736 S.E.2d at 686 ("The burden is upon the appellant to convince the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) (stating "de novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court"); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 378 S.C. 523, 2015See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Gaffney, 401 S.C. at 221 , 736 S.E.2d at 686 ("The burden is upon the appellant to convince the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) (stating "de novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court"); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 378 S.C. 523, | 1 | 1 |
Nicholson v. Nicholsongreen2 sentences2015See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Gaffney, 401 S.C. at 221 , 736 S.E.2d at 686 ("The burden is upon the appellant to convince the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) (stating "de novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court"); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 378 S.C. 523, 2015See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Gaffney, 401 S.C. at 221 , 736 S.E.2d at 686 ("The burden is upon the appellant to convince the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) (stating "de novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court"); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 378 S.C. 523, | 1 | 1 |
Weinberg Ex Rel. Estate of Weinberg v. Wallacegreen2 sentences2014As to the inclusion of the goodwill of Beltone Hearing Care Group, LLC, in the marital estate: Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review [in appeals from the family court] neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court."); Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 387-88 , 544 S.E.2d 620, 623 (2001) (stating the broad scope of review in an appeal from an action in equity does not relieve the appellant of the burden of convincing the appellate court that the trial court erred in its findings); RGM v 2014As to the inclusion of the goodwill of Beltone Hearing Care Group, LLC, in the marital estate: Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review [in appeals from the family court] neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court."); Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 387-88 , 544 S.E.2d 620, 623 (2001) (stating the broad scope of review in an appeal from an action in equity does not relieve the appellant of the burden of convincing the appellate court that the trial court erred in its findings); RGM v | 1 | 1 |
| Rgm v. Demgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Casey v. Caseygreen | 1 | 1 |
Pinckney v. Warrengreen2 sentences2014As to the inclusion of the goodwill of Beltone Hearing Care Group, LLC, in the marital estate: Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review [in appeals from the family court] neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court."); Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 387-88 , 544 S.E.2d 620, 623 (2001) (stating the broad scope of review in an appeal from an action in equity does not relieve the appellant of the burden of convincing the appellate court that the trial court erred in its findings); RGM v 2014As to the inclusion of the goodwill of Beltone Hearing Care Group, LLC, in the marital estate: Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 389 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654 (2011) ("[D]e novo review [in appeals from the family court] neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court."); Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 387-88 , 544 S.E.2d 620, 623 (2001) (stating the broad scope of review in an appeal from an action in equity does not relieve the appellant of the burden of convincing the appellate court that the trial court erred in its findings); RGM v | 1 | 1 |
| Rutherford v. Rutherfordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chisholm v. Chisholmgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Doe v. Doegreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Curlee v. Howle green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.