manifest error in South Carolina

30 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1946–2025 2 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Welch v. Epsteingreen scctapp · 2000 · cited in 4 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2019–2025 2 sentences 2025"The [court]'s decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears the exercise of discretion was controlled by a manifest error of law." Id. 2025"The [trial court's] decision will not disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears the exercise of discretion was controlled by a manifest error of law." Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279, 303 , 536 S.E.2d 408, 420 (Ct. App. 2000).	2	4
Skinner v. Santorogreen sc · 1964 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1965–1973 2 sentences 1973See opinions recently filed in the cases of Skinner v. Santoro et al., 245 S. C. 35, 138 S. E. (2d) 645, 1964 ; Oswald v. Oswald et al., 245 S. C. 44, 138 S. E. (2d) 639, 1964 ; and Gulledge v. Young, 245 S. C. 88, 138 S. E. (2d) 833, 1964 .” Dimery v. Bloom, 245 S. C. 367, 140 S. E. (2d) 600 . 1965See opinion recently filed in the cases of Skinner v. Santoro et al., S. C., 138 S. E. (2d) 645, 1964 ; Oswald v. Oswald et al., S. C., 138 S. E. (2d) 639, 1964 ; and Gulledge v. Young, S. C., 138 S. E. (2d) 833, 1964 .	2	2
Todd v. Owen Industrial Products, Inc.green scctapp · 1993 · cited in 3 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1996–2020 2 sentences 1996Prods., Inc., 315 S.C. 34 , 431 S.E. (2d) 596 (Ct. App. 1993) (in an appeal of an order granting a new trial on the facts, an appellant has a heavy burden in demonstrating it clearly appeared the judge’s exercise of discretion was controlled by a manifest error of law). 1996Prods., Inc., 315 S.C. 34 , 431 S.E. (2d) 596 (Ct. App. 1993) (in an appeal of an order granting a new trial on the facts, an appellant has a heavy burden in demonstrating it clearly appeared the judge’s exercise of discretion was controlled by a manifest error of law).	1	3
Youmans v. South Carolina Department of Transportationgreen scctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020As to Appellants' argument the circuit court misapplied the law regarding immunity under the Act and, thus, erred in granting Respondents a new trial, we find the circuit court's exercise of discretion in granting a new trial was not "clearly . . . controlled by a manifest error of law." Id. at 271 , 670 S.E.2d at 5 ("Further, in an appeal of an order granting a new trial pursuant to the thirteenth juror doctrine, the appellant 'bears the heavy burden of demonstrating to the court that it clearly appeared that the judge's exercise of discretion was controlled by a manifest error of law.'" (quo	1	1
Cook v. South Carolina Department of Highways & Public Transportationgreen sc · 1992 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Transp. , 309 S.C. 179, 184 , 420 S.E.2d 847, 849 (1992) (citing Grand Strand Constr. 2004Transp. , 309 S.C. 179, 184 , 420 S.E.2d 847, 849 (1992) (citing Grand Strand Constr.	1	1
Hook Ex Rel. Estate of Summers v. Rothsteingreen scctapp · 1984 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994The trial court excluded these photographs because they 205 showed subsequent remedial measures. 3 The trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence, and “to warrant a reversal, an abuse of discretion amounting to a manifest error of law must be demonstrated.” Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 556 , 316 S.E. (2d) 690, 700 (Ct. App.), cert. denied, 283 S.C. 64 , 320 S.E. (2d) 35 (1984). 1994The trial court excluded these photographs because they 205 showed subsequent remedial measures. 3 The trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence, and “to warrant a reversal, an abuse of discretion amounting to a manifest error of law must be demonstrated.” Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 556 , 316 S.E. (2d) 690, 700 (Ct. App.), cert. denied, 283 S.C. 64 , 320 S.E. (2d) 35 (1984).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (22)

Case	Cited	Years
Grand Strand Construction Co. v. Graves green sc · 1977 2 sentences 1992Grand Strand Construction Co. v. Graves, 269 S.C. 594 , 239 S.E. (2d) 81 (1977). 1992Grand Strand Construction Co. v. Graves, 269 S.C. 594 , 239 S.E. (2d) 81 (1977).	4	1984–1992
Dimery v. Bloom neutral sc · 1965 2 sentences 1973See opinions recently filed in the cases of Skinner v. Santoro et al., 245 S. C. 35, 138 S. E. (2d) 645, 1964 ; Oswald v. Oswald et al., 245 S. C. 44, 138 S. E. (2d) 639, 1964 ; and Gulledge v. Young, 245 S. C. 88, 138 S. E. (2d) 833, 1964 .” Dimery v. Bloom, 245 S. C. 367, 140 S. E. (2d) 600 . 1966It must be resolved against the appellant under the consistent line of decisions of this court, unbroken in recent years, holding that such a motion is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and that the decision of that court will not be disturbed on appeal “except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion amounting to a manifest error of law.” Dimery v. Bloom, 245 S. C. 367, 140 S. E. (2d) 600 ; West’s South Carolina Digest, Appeal and Error, Par. 965; Ibid., Venue, Par. 51, 52(1).	3	1966–1973
Gray v. Davis green sc · 1966 2 sentences 1993Gray v. Davis, 247 S.C. 536 , 148 S.E. (2d) 682 (1966) (the decision on a new trial motion based upon the amount of the verdict is ordinarily not appealable and will not be reviewed or disturbed unless it clearly appears that the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion was controlled by a manifest error of law). 1993Gray v. Davis, 247 S.C. 536 , 148 S.E. (2d) 682 (1966) (the decision on a new trial motion based upon the amount of the verdict is ordinarily not appealable and will not be reviewed or disturbed unless it clearly appears that the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion was controlled by a manifest error of law).	2	1993–2008
Daniel v. Sharpe Const. Co., Inc. green sc · 1978 2 sentences 2008Id. 1993Id.	2	1993–2008
Miller v. Miller green sc · 1966 2 sentences 1974Miller v. Miller, 248 S. C. 125, 149 S. E. (2d) 336 ; Bouvy v. N. W. 1973Miller v. Miller, 248 S. C. 125, 149 S. E. (2d) 336 ; Bouvy v. N. W.	2	1973–1974
Gulledge v. Young neutral sc · 1964 2 sentences 1973See opinions recently filed in the cases of Skinner v. Santoro et al., 245 S. C. 35, 138 S. E. (2d) 645, 1964 ; Oswald v. Oswald et al., 245 S. C. 44, 138 S. E. (2d) 639, 1964 ; and Gulledge v. Young, 245 S. C. 88, 138 S. E. (2d) 833, 1964 .” Dimery v. Bloom, 245 S. C. 367, 140 S. E. (2d) 600 . 1965See opinion recently filed in the cases of Skinner v. Santoro et al., S. C., 138 S. E. (2d) 645, 1964 ; Oswald v. Oswald et al., S. C., 138 S. E. (2d) 639, 1964 ; and Gulledge v. Young, S. C., 138 S. E. (2d) 833, 1964 .	2	1965–1973
Oswald v. Oswald green sc · 1964 2 sentences 1973See opinions recently filed in the cases of Skinner v. Santoro et al., 245 S. C. 35, 138 S. E. (2d) 645, 1964 ; Oswald v. Oswald et al., 245 S. C. 44, 138 S. E. (2d) 639, 1964 ; and Gulledge v. Young, 245 S. C. 88, 138 S. E. (2d) 833, 1964 .” Dimery v. Bloom, 245 S. C. 367, 140 S. E. (2d) 600 . 1965See opinion recently filed in the cases of Skinner v. Santoro et al., S. C., 138 S. E. (2d) 645, 1964 ; Oswald v. Oswald et al., S. C., 138 S. E. (2d) 639, 1964 ; and Gulledge v. Young, S. C., 138 S. E. (2d) 833, 1964 .	2	1965–1973
Nestler v. Fields green scctapp · 2019 1 sentence 2025Nestler, 426 S.C. at 41, 824 S.E.2d at 465 ; see also Welch, 342 S.C. at 303 , 536 S.E.2d at 420 ("The [court]'s decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears the exercise of discretion was controlled by a manifest error of law.").	1	2025–2025
Folkens Ex Rel. Estate of McLendon v. Hunt green sc · 1990 1 sentence 2020As to Appellants' argument the circuit court misapplied the law regarding immunity under the Act and, thus, erred in granting Respondents a new trial, we find the circuit court's exercise of discretion in granting a new trial was not "clearly . . . controlled by a manifest error of law." Id. at 271 , 670 S.E.2d at 5 ("Further, in an appeal of an order granting a new trial pursuant to the thirteenth juror doctrine, the appellant 'bears the heavy burden of demonstrating to the court that it clearly appeared that the judge's exercise of discretion was controlled by a manifest error of law.'" (quo	1	2020–2020
Rush v. Blanchard green sc · 1993 2 sentences 2005On appeal, the trial judges decision to reduce the verdict will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that the exercise of discretion was controlled by a manifest error of law. Id. 2005The trial judges decision is given great deference because the judge, who heard the evidence and is more familiar with the evidentiary atmosphere at trial[,] possesses a better-informed view of the damages than this [c]ourt. Id.	1	2005–2005
Gale v. THE STATE BOARD OF MED. EXAM. OF SC green scctapp · 1984 1 sentence 1994The trial court excluded these photographs because they *205 showed subsequent remedial measures. 3 The trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence, and “to warrant a reversal, an abuse of discretion amounting to a manifest error of law must be demonstrated.” Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 556 , 316 S.E. (2d) 690, 700 (Ct. App.), cert. denied, 283 S.C. 64 , 320 S.E. (2d) 35 (1984).	1	1994–1994
Hook Ex Rel. Estate of Summers v. Rothstein green sc · 1984 1 sentence 1994The trial court excluded these photographs because they *205 showed subsequent remedial measures. 3 The trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence, and “to warrant a reversal, an abuse of discretion amounting to a manifest error of law must be demonstrated.” Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 556 , 316 S.E. (2d) 690, 700 (Ct. App.), cert. denied, 283 S.C. 64 , 320 S.E. (2d) 35 (1984).	1	1994–1994
South Carolina State Highway Department v. Rural Land Co. green sc · 1967 2 sentences 1988Grand Strand Construction Co., Inc., v. Graves , 269 S.C. 594 , 239 S.E. (2d) 81 (1977); South Carolina State Highway Department v. Rural Land Co. , 250 S.C. 12 , 156 S.E. (2d) 333 (1967). 1988Grand Strand Construction Co., Inc., v. Graves , 269 S.C. 594 , 239 S.E. (2d) 81 (1977); South Carolina State Highway Department v. Rural Land Co. , 250 S.C. 12 , 156 S.E. (2d) 333 (1967).	1	1988–1988
Honea v. Prior green scctapp · 1988 1 sentence 1988Honea v. Prior, 295 S. C. 462, 369 S. E. (2d) 846 (Ct. App. 1988).	1	1988–1988
Durant v. Black River Electric Cooperative, Inc. green sc · 1978 2 sentences 1981Durant v. Black River Electric Cooperative, Inc. , 271 S.C. 466 , 248 S.E. (2d) 264 (1978). 1981Durant v. Black River Electric Cooperative, Inc. , 271 S.C. 466 , 248 S.E. (2d) 264 (1978).	1	1981–1981
Wright v. Public Savings Life Insurance green sc · 1974 1 sentence 1977Wright v. Public Savings Life Insurance Co., 262 S. C. 285, 204 S. E. (2d) 57 (1974).	1	1977–1977
Livingston v. Central Refrigeration Co. neutral sc · 1973 1 sentence 1975Livingston v. Central Refrigeration Company, 261 S. C. 147, 198 S. E. (2d) 799 , and the cases therein cited.	1	1975–1975
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. v. Aetna Insurance green sc · 1959 1 sentence 1966Doss v. Douglass Construction Co., 232 S. C. 261, 101 S. E. (2d) 661 ; South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. v. Aetna Insurance Co., 235 S. C. 147, 110 S. E. (2d) 165 .	1	1966–1966
Doss v. Douglass Construction Co. neutral sc · 1958 1 sentence 1966Doss v. Douglass Construction Co., 232 S. C. 261, 101 S. E. (2d) 661 ; South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. v. Aetna Insurance Co., 235 S. C. 147, 110 S. E. (2d) 165 .	1	1966–1966
State v. Strickland green · 1942 1 sentence 1965In the case of State v. Strickland, 201 S. C. 170, 22 S. E. (2d) 417 , a well established rule of law, applicable to this case, was stated as follows: “The granting or refusal of a motion for a new trial made upon the ground of after-discovered evidence is largely within the sound discretion of the Circuit Judge and his decision thereon will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, amounting to manifest error of law.” When the record before us is viewed in the light of the foregoing principles, we think it cannot be said that there was any abuse of discretion, amoun	1	1965–1965
Griffin v. Owens neutral sc · 1934 1 sentence 1946Johnston v. Belk-McKnight Co., 194 S. C., 490, 10 S. E. (2d), 1 ; Griffin v. Owens, 171 S. C., 276, 172 S. E., 221 .	1	1946–1946
Johnston v. Belk-McKnight Co. of Newberry, S. C., Inc. neutral sc · 1940 1 sentence 1946Johnston v. Belk-McKnight Co., 194 S. C., 490, 10 S. E. (2d), 1 ; Griffin v. Owens, 171 S. C., 276, 172 S. E., 221 .	1	1946–1946

Where else courts name it

LA 5746 (1912–2026) WA 475 (1920–2026) IL 309 (1886–2026) MS 291 (1914–2026) VA 42 (1885–2026) RI 37 (1974–2020) WI 37 (1955–2026) PA 33 (1893–2026) SC 30 (1946–2025) ME 27 (1953–2019) NM 20 (1975–2025) FL 15 (1974–2024) AL 14 (1850–2002) AR 13 (1961–2025) KY 13 (1863–2024) MT 12 (1946–2024) NY 12 (1906–2009) OH 9 (1937–2020) KS 8 (1910–1994) CA 7 (1928–1999) DC 7 (1902–2017) OK 7 (1923–2015) NJ 6 (1954–2021) MO 6 (1894–1992) TX 6 (1871–2006) CO 5 (1894–2018) IA 4 (1908–1991) GA 4 (1894–2025) UT 4 (1988–2002) MA 4 (1942–2013) DE 3 (2019–2024) TN 3 (1967–2017) WY 3 (2021–2023) VI 3 (1999–2013) OR 3 (1896–2017) NV 2 (1930–2020) IN 2 (1970–2017) PR 2 (1912–1917) MD 2 (2010–2016) AZ 2 (2001–2006) VT 2 (2008–2014) MI 2 (1893–1905)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check