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.
29 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2023 4 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 sentences2019Code Ann. § 63-3-530 (38) (2010) ("Suit money, including attorney's fees, may be assessed for or against a party to an action brought in or subject to the jurisdiction of the family court."); Teeter v. Teeter, 408 S.C. 485, 500 , 759 S.E.2d 144, 152 (Ct. App. 2014) ("In deciding whether to award attorney's fees and costs, the court should consider the following factors: (1) the ability of the party to pay the fees; (2) beneficial results obtained; (3) the financial conditions of the parties; and (4) the effect a fee award will have on the party's standard of living."); Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. 2019Code Ann. § 63-3-530 (38) (2010) ("Suit money, including attorney's fees, may be assessed for or against a party to an action brought in or subject to the jurisdiction of the family court."); Teeter v. Teeter, 408 S.C. 485, 500 , 759 S.E.2d 144, 152 (Ct. App. 2014) ("In deciding whether to award attorney's fees and costs, the court should consider the following factors: (1) the ability of the party to pay the fees; (2) beneficial results obtained; (3) the financial conditions of the parties; and (4) the effect a fee award will have on the party's standard of living."); Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. | 8 | 8 |
In Re the Care & Treatment of Tuckergreen2 sentences2023Because evidence in the record reasonably supports the trial court's order, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: In re Care & Treatment of Tucker, 353 S.C. 466, 470 , 578 S.E.2d 719, 721 (2003) ("On review, the appellate court will not disturb the hearing court's finding on probable cause unless found to be without evidence that reasonably supports the hearing court's finding."); id. at 470 , 578 S.E.2d at 722 ("In a [section] 44-48-110 probable cause hearing, the committed person has the burden of showing the hearing court that probable cause exists to beli 2023Because evidence in the record reasonably supports the trial court's order, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: In re Care & Treatment of Tucker, 353 S.C. 466, 470 , 578 S.E.2d 719, 721 (2003) ("On review, the appellate court will not disturb the hearing court's finding on probable cause unless found to be without evidence that reasonably supports the hearing court's finding."); id. at 470 , 578 S.E.2d at 722 ("In a [section] 44-48-110 probable cause hearing, the committed person has the burden of showing the hearing court that probable cause exists to beli | 4 | 4 |
Snyder's Auto World, Inc. v. George Coleman Motor Co.green2 sentences2017See Snyder's Auto World, Inc. v. George Coleman Motor Co., 315 S.C. 183, 186 , 434 S.E.2d 310, 312 (Ct. App. 1993) (stating the appellant has the burden of showing error). 2017See Snyder's Auto World, Inc. v. George Coleman Motor Co., 315 S.C. 183, 186 , 434 S.E.2d 310, 312 (Ct. App. 1993) (stating the appellant has the burden of showing error). | 3 | 3 |
Edm v. Tamgreen2 sentences2015As to the family court's award of attorney's fees to Mother: Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. 354, 372 , 734 S.E.2d 322, 331 (Ct. App. 2012) ("The decision to award attorney's fees is within the family court's sound discretion, and although appellate review of such an award is de novo, the appellant still has the burden of showing error in the family court's findings of fact."); E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471 , 476- 77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) (holding the family court should consider the following factors when determining whether to award attorney's fees: (1) the party's ability to pay her own att 2015As to the family court's award of attorney's fees to Mother: Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. 354, 372 , 734 S.E.2d 322, 331 (Ct. App. 2012) ("The decision to award attorney's fees is within the family court's sound discretion, and although appellate review of such an award is de novo, the appellant still has the burden of showing error in the family court's findings of fact."); E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471 , 476- 77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) (holding the family court should consider the following factors when determining whether to award attorney's fees: (1) the party's ability to pay her own att | 3 | 3 |
First Savings Bank v. McLeangreen2 sentences2003The remainder of Michael’s issues on appeal are deemed abandoned and are affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following authorities: First Savings Bank v. McLean , 314 S.C. 361, 363 , 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (Appellant has abandoned his issues where he fails to “provide arguments or supporting authority for his assertion.” The party challenging the ruling below has the burden of showing error.); Fields v. Melrose Ltd. 2003The remainder of Michael’s issues on appeal are deemed abandoned and are affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following authorities: First Savings Bank v. McLean , 314 S.C. 361, 363 , 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (Appellant has abandoned his issues where he fails to “provide arguments or supporting authority for his assertion.” The party challenging the ruling below has the burden of showing error.); Fields v. Melrose Ltd. | 3 | 3 |
Fields v. Melrose Ltd. Partnershipgreen2 sentences2003P’ship , 312 S.C. 102 , 106 n.3, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285, n.3 (Ct. App. 1993) (An issue is deemed abandoned on appeal, and therefore, not presented for review, if it is argued in a short, conclusory statement without supporting authority.); Video Gaming Consultants, Inc. v. S.C. 2003P’ship , 312 S.C. 102 , 106 n.3, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285, n.3 (Ct. App. 1993) (An issue is deemed abandoned on appeal, and therefore, not presented for review, if it is argued in a short, conclusory statement without supporting authority.); Video Gaming Consultants, Inc. v. S.C. | 3 | 3 |
McCall v. Finleygreen2 sentences2021See McCall v. Finley, 294 S.C. 1, 4 , 362 S.E.2d 26 , 28 (Ct. App. 1987) ("Appellate courts recognize—or at least they should recognize—an overriding rule of civil procedure which says: whatever doesn't make any difference, doesn't matter."); Cox, 290 S.C. at 248 , 349 S.E.2d at 94 (holding the appellant has the burden of showing an error was prejudicial). 3. 2021See McCall v. Finley, 294 S.C. 1, 4 , 362 S.E.2d 26 , 28 (Ct. App. 1987) ("Appellate courts recognize—or at least they should recognize—an overriding rule of civil procedure which says: whatever doesn't make any difference, doesn't matter."); Cox, 290 S.C. at 248 , 349 S.E.2d at 94 (holding the appellant has the burden of showing an error was prejudicial). 3. | 2 | 2 |
Cox v. Coxgreen2 sentences2021See Tipton v. Tipton, 351 S.C. 456, 458-59 , 570 S.E.2d 195, 196 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding when the husband did not appeal a determination by the family court, that ruling was the law of the case); Cox v. Cox, 290 S.C. 245, 248 , 349 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 1986) (holding the appellant has the burden of showing an error was prejudicial). 2. 2021See Tipton v. Tipton, 351 S.C. 456, 458-59 , 570 S.E.2d 195, 196 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding when the husband did not appeal a determination by the family court, that ruling was the law of the case); Cox v. Cox, 290 S.C. 245, 248 , 349 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 1986) (holding the appellant has the burden of showing an error was prejudicial). 2. | 2 | 2 |
Chisholm v. Chisholmgreen2 sentences2012Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223-24 (2012). 2012Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223-24 (2012). | 2 | 2 |
Cook v. Ellergreen2 sentences2007Snyder’s Auto World, Inc. v. George Coleman Motor Co., Inc. , 315 S.C. 183, 186 , 434 S.E.2d 310, 312 (Ct. App. 1993); Cook v. Eller , 298 S.C. 395, 398 , 380 S.E.2d 853, 855 (Ct. App. 1989). 2007Snyder’s Auto World, Inc. v. George Coleman Motor Co., Inc. , 315 S.C. 183, 186 , 434 S.E.2d 310, 312 (Ct. App. 1993); Cook v. Eller , 298 S.C. 395, 398 , 380 S.E.2d 853, 855 (Ct. App. 1989). | 2 | 2 |
Tipton v. Tiptongreen2 sentences2021See Tipton v. Tipton, 351 S.C. 456, 458-59 , 570 S.E.2d 195, 196 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding when the husband did not appeal a determination by the family court, that ruling was the law of the case); Cox v. Cox, 290 S.C. 245, 248 , 349 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 1986) (holding the appellant has the burden of showing an error was prejudicial). 2. 2021See Tipton v. Tipton, 351 S.C. 456, 458-59 , 570 S.E.2d 195, 196 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding when the husband did not appeal a determination by the family court, that ruling was the law of the case); Cox v. Cox, 290 S.C. 245, 248 , 349 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 1986) (holding the appellant has the burden of showing an error was prejudicial). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Teeter v. Teetergreen2 sentences2019Code Ann. § 63-3-530 (38) (2010) ("Suit money, including attorney's fees, may be assessed for or against a party to an action brought in or subject to the jurisdiction of the family court."); Teeter v. Teeter, 408 S.C. 485, 500 , 759 S.E.2d 144, 152 (Ct. App. 2014) ("In deciding whether to award attorney's fees and costs, the court should consider the following factors: (1) the ability of the party to pay the fees; (2) beneficial results obtained; (3) the financial conditions of the parties; and (4) the effect a fee award will have on the party's standard of living."); Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. 2019Code Ann. § 63-3-530 (38) (2010) ("Suit money, including attorney's fees, may be assessed for or against a party to an action brought in or subject to the jurisdiction of the family court."); Teeter v. Teeter, 408 S.C. 485, 500 , 759 S.E.2d 144, 152 (Ct. App. 2014) ("In deciding whether to award attorney's fees and costs, the court should consider the following factors: (1) the ability of the party to pay the fees; (2) beneficial results obtained; (3) the financial conditions of the parties; and (4) the effect a fee award will have on the party's standard of living."); Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. | 1 | 1 |
Griffith v. Griffithgreen2 sentences2015As to the family court's award of attorney's fees to Mother: Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. 354, 372 , 734 S.E.2d 322, 331 (Ct. App. 2012) ("The decision to award attorney's fees is within the family court's sound discretion, and although appellate review of such an award is de novo, the appellant still has the burden of showing error in the family court's findings of fact."); E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471 , 476- 77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) (holding the family court should consider the following factors when determining whether to award attorney's fees: (1) the party's ability to pay her own att 2015As to the family court's award of attorney's fees to Mother: Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. 354, 372 , 734 S.E.2d 322, 331 (Ct. App. 2012) ("The decision to award attorney's fees is within the family court's sound discretion, and although appellate review of such an award is de novo, the appellant still has the burden of showing error in the family court's findings of fact."); E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471 , 476- 77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) (holding the family court should consider the following factors when determining whether to award attorney's fees: (1) the party's ability to pay her own att | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hardacregreen2 sentences2003See People v. Hardacre, 90 Cal.App.4th 1392 , 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 667 (2001) (at show cause hearing, committed person must establish probable cause to believe his mental condition has changed so that he is no longer a danger to others). 2003See People v. Hardacre, 90 Cal.App.4th 1392 , 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 667 (2001) (at show cause hearing, committed person must establish probable cause to believe his mental condition has changed so that he is no longer a danger to others). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Horton Ex Rel. Estate of Scott v. Greyhound Corp.
green
2 sentences1989Horton v. Greyhound Corporation, 241 S. C. 430, 128 S. E. (2d) 776 (1962). 1988Duckett v. Payne, 279 S. C. 94, 302 S. E. (2d) 342 (1983); Horton v. Greyhound Corporation, 241 S. C. 430, 128 S. E. (2d) 776 (1962). | 2 | 1988–1989 |
State v. Peake
green
2 sentences1996“A statement induced by a promise of leniency is involuntary only if so connected with the inducement as to be a consequence of the promise.” Peake, 291 S.C. at 139 , 352 S.E.2d at 488 . *306 In State v. Doby, 273 S.C. 704 , 258 S.E.2d 896 (1979), our Supreme Court addressed the voluntariness requirement of a waiver of rights: The signing of the waiver form alone is not conclusive; the State still has the burden of showing the waiver was voluntary. 1996“A statement induced by a promise of leniency is involuntary only if so connected with the inducement as to be a consequence of the promise.” Peake, 291 S.C. at 139 , 352 S.E.2d at 488 . *306 In State v. Doby, 273 S.C. 704 , 258 S.E.2d 896 (1979), our Supreme Court addressed the voluntariness requirement of a waiver of rights: The signing of the waiver form alone is not conclusive; the State still has the burden of showing the waiver was voluntary. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Doby
green
2 sentences1996“A statement induced by a promise of leniency is involuntary only if so connected with the inducement as to be a consequence of the promise.” Peake, 291 S.C. at 139 , 352 S.E.2d at 488 . *306 In State v. Doby, 273 S.C. 704 , 258 S.E.2d 896 (1979), our Supreme Court addressed the voluntariness requirement of a waiver of rights: The signing of the waiver form alone is not conclusive; the State still has the burden of showing the waiver was voluntary. 1996“A statement induced by a promise of leniency is involuntary only if so connected with the inducement as to be a consequence of the promise.” Peake, 291 S.C. at 139 , 352 S.E.2d at 488 . *306 In State v. Doby, 273 S.C. 704 , 258 S.E.2d 896 (1979), our Supreme Court addressed the voluntariness requirement of a waiver of rights: The signing of the waiver form alone is not conclusive; the State still has the burden of showing the waiver was voluntary. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Dicks & Gillam, Inc. v. Cleland
green
1 sentence1989Dicks & Gillam, Inc. v. Cleland, 295 S. C. 124, 367 S. E. (2d) 430 (Ct. App. 1988). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Duckett v. Payne
green
1 sentence1988Duckett v. Payne, 279 S. C. 94, 302 S. E. (2d) 342 (1983); Horton v. Greyhound Corporation, 241 S. C. 430, 128 S. E. (2d) 776 (1962). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Pendergrass
green
1 sentence1979State v. Pendergrass, 270 S. C. 1, 239 S. E. (2d) 750 (1977). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Ingoglia v. Spitzer
green
1 sentence1977Soolook v. State, Alaska, 447 P. (2d) 55 , cert. denied, 396 U. S. 850 , 90 S. Ct. 107 , 24 L. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Soolook v. State
green
1 sentence1977Soolook v. State, Alaska, 447 P. (2d) 55 , cert. denied, 396 U. S. 850 , 90 S. Ct. 107 , 24 L. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.
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.