complaint states any valid claim in South Carolina

2023"The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." Plyler v. Burns, 373 S.C. 637, 645 , 647 S.E.2d 188, 192 (2007).

2023"The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." Plyler v. Burns, 373 S.C. 637, 645 , 647 S.E.2d 188, 192 (2007).

2025"The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." Id. (quoting Marion, 373 S.C. at 395 , 645 S.E.2d at 247–48).

2025"The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." Id. (quoting Marion, 373 S.C. at 395 , 645 S.E.2d at 247–48).

2025Co. v. BP Staff, Inc., 382 S.C. 92, 99 , 674 S.E.2d 524, 528 (Ct. App. 2009) ("An appellate court applies the same standard of review as the trial court when reviewing the dismissal of an action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) [of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure]."); id. ("The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief."); § 62-3-803(a)(1) ("All claims against a decedent's estate which arose before the death of the decedent, . . . whether due or to become due, absolute or

2025"The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." Id.

2018"The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." Id . at 395, 645 S.E.2d at 247 -48 (quoting Gentry v. Yonce , 337 S.C. 1 , 5, 522 S.E.2d 137 , 139 (1999) ).

2018"The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." Id . at 395, 645 S.E.2d at 247 -48 (quoting Gentry v. Yonce , 337 S.C. 1 , 5, 522 S.E.2d 137 , 139 (1999) ).

2007Toussaint v. Ham, 292 S.C. 415, 416 , 357 S.E.2d 8, 9 (1987).

2006“The question is whether in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief.” Id.

2018"The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." Id.

1999DISCUSSION Initially, we note that in deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6), SCRCP, the trial court should consider only the allegations set forth on the face of the plaintiffs complaint and a 12(b)(6) motion should not be granted if “facts alleged and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom would entitle the plaintiff to any relief on any theory of the case.” Stiles v. Onorato, 318 S.C. 297, 300 , 457 S.E.2d 601, 602 (1995). 2 The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim f

2017See Plyler, 373 S.C. at 645 , 647 S.E.2d at 192 ("The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief."); Armstrong, 371 S.C. at 276 , 639 S.E.2d at 52 (providing to state a claim for vicarious liability, a plaintiff must establish that the employment relationship existed at the time of the injuries and the employee was acting within the scope of employment).

2017See Plyler, 373 S.C. at 645 , 647 S.E.2d at 192 ("The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief."); Armstrong, 371 S.C. at 276 , 639 S.E.2d at 52 (providing to state a claim for vicarious liability, a plaintiff must establish that the employment relationship existed at the time of the injuries and the employee was acting within the scope of employment).

2016“The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief.” Cole Vision Corp. v. Hobbs, 394 S.C. 144, 149 , 714 S.E.2d 537, 539 (2011).

2016“The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief.” Cole Vision Corp. v. Hobbs, 394 S.C. 144, 149 , 714 S.E.2d 537, 539 (2011).

2014Univ. of S.C., 314 S.C. 376, 379 , 444 S.E.2d 519, 521 (1994) (declining to recognize a cause of action for breach of an implied contract arising from an alleged failure to provide adequate medical treatment).

2014Univ. of S.C., 314 S.C. 376, 379 , 444 S.E.2d 519, 521 (1994) (declining to recognize a cause of action for breach of an implied contract arising from an alleged failure to provide adequate medical treatment).

2014The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Rolandi v. City of Spartanburg, 294 S.C. 161, 164 , 363 S.E.2d 385, 386-87 (Ct. App. 1987) ("An implied in fact contract is a contract which arises when the assent of the parties to the agreement is manifested by conduct."); Stanley Smith & Sons v. Limestone Coll., 283 S.C. 430, 434 , 322 S.E.2d 474, 477 (Ct. App. 1984) ("The parties must manifest their mutual assent to all essent

2014The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Rolandi v. City of Spartanburg, 294 S.C. 161, 164 , 363 S.E.2d 385, 386-87 (Ct. App. 1987) ("An implied in fact contract is a contract which arises when the assent of the parties to the agreement is manifested by conduct."); Stanley Smith & Sons v. Limestone Coll., 283 S.C. 430, 434 , 322 S.E.2d 474, 477 (Ct. App. 1984) ("The parties must manifest their mutual assent to all essent

2014The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Rolandi v. City of Spartanburg, 294 S.C. 161, 164 , 363 S.E.2d 385, 386-87 (Ct. App. 1987) ("An implied in fact contract is a contract which arises when the assent of the parties to the agreement is manifested by conduct."); Stanley Smith & Sons v. Limestone Coll., 283 S.C. 430, 434 , 322 S.E.2d 474, 477 (Ct. App. 1984) ("The parties must manifest their mutual assent to all essent

2014The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Rolandi v. City of Spartanburg, 294 S.C. 161, 164 , 363 S.E.2d 385, 386-87 (Ct. App. 1987) ("An implied in fact contract is a contract which arises when the assent of the parties to the agreement is manifested by conduct."); Stanley Smith & Sons v. Limestone Coll., 283 S.C. 430, 434 , 322 S.E.2d 474, 477 (Ct. App. 1984) ("The parties must manifest their mutual assent to all essent

2014The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Rolandi v. City of Spartanburg, 294 S.C. 161, 164 , 363 S.E.2d 385, 386-87 (Ct. App. 1987) ("An implied in fact contract is a contract which arises when the assent of the parties to the agreement is manifested by conduct."); Stanley Smith & Sons v. Limestone Coll., 283 S.C. 430, 434 , 322 S.E.2d 474, 477 (Ct. App. 1984) ("The parties must manifest their mutual assent to all essent

2014The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Rolandi v. City of Spartanburg, 294 S.C. 161, 164 , 363 S.E.2d 385, 386-87 (Ct. App. 1987) ("An implied in fact contract is a contract which arises when the assent of the parties to the agreement is manifested by conduct."); Stanley Smith & Sons v. Limestone Coll., 283 S.C. 430, 434 , 322 S.E.2d 474, 477 (Ct. App. 1984) ("The parties must manifest their mutual assent to all essent

1999“The question to be considered is whether in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief.” Holy Loch Distrib., Inc. v. Hitchcock, 332 S.C. 247, 252 , 503 S.E.2d 787, 790 (Ct.App.1998). *503 LAW/ANALYSIS MUSC contends South Carolina Code section 42-1-540 (1976), mandates workers’ compensation benefits as Tatum’s exclusive remedy.

1999“The question to be considered is whether in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief.” Holy Loch Distrib., Inc. v. Hitchcock, 332 S.C. 247, 252 , 503 S.E.2d 787, 790 (Ct.App.1998). *503 LAW/ANALYSIS MUSC contends South Carolina Code section 42-1-540 (1976), mandates workers’ compensation benefits as Tatum’s exclusive remedy.