fundamental rule in South Carolina

2025See Lindsay v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 338 , 491 S.E.2d 583, 588 (Ct. App. 1997) ("It is a fundamental rule of law that an appellate court will affirm a ruling by a lower court if the offended party does not challenge that ruling."); id. ("Failure to challenge the ruling 'is an abandonment of the issue and precludes consideration on appeal.'" (quoting Biales v. Young, 315 S.C. 166, 168 , 432 S.E.2d 482, 484 (1993))).

2025See Lindsay v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 338 , 491 S.E.2d 583, 588 (Ct. App. 1997) ("It is a fundamental rule of law that an appellate court will affirm a ruling by a lower court if the offended party does not challenge that ruling."); id. ("Failure to challenge the ruling 'is an abandonment of the issue and precludes consideration on appeal.'" (quoting Biales v. Young, 315 S.C. 166, 168 , 432 S.E.2d 482, 484 (1993))).

2025See Lindsay v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 338 , 491 S.E.2d 583, 588 (Ct. App. 1997) ("It is a fundamental rule of law that an appellate court will affirm a ruling by a lower court if the offended party does not challenge that ruling."); id. ("Failure to challenge the ruling 'is an abandonment of the issue and precludes consideration on appeal.'" (quoting Biales v. Young, 315 S.C. 166, 168 , 432 S.E.2d 482, 484 (1993))).

2025See Lindsay v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 338 , 491 S.E.2d 583, 588 (Ct. App. 1997) ("It is a fundamental rule of law that an appellate court will affirm a ruling by a lower court if the offended party does not challenge that ruling."); id. ("Failure to challenge the ruling 'is an abandonment of the issue and precludes consideration on appeal.'" (quoting Biales v. Young, 315 S.C. 166, 168 , 432 S.E.2d 482, 484 (1993))).

2022"Standing to sue is a fundamental requirement in instituting an action." Joytime Distribs. & Amusement Co. v. State, 338 S.C. 634, 639 , 528 S.E.2d 647, 649 (1999).

2022"Standing to sue is a fundamental requirement in instituting an action." Joytime Distribs. & Amusement Co. v. State, 338 S.C. 634, 639 , 528 S.E.2d 647, 649 (1999).

2016See Murdock v. Murdock, 338 S.C. 322, 334 , 526 S.E.2d 241, 248 (Ct. App. 1999) ("It is a fundamental doctrine of the law that a party whose personal rights are to be affected by a personal judgment must have a day in court, or opportunity to be heard, and that without due notice and opportunity to be heard a court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such personal rights." (emphasis added) (quoting Webster v. Clanton, 259 S.C. 387, 391 , 192 S.E.2d 214, 216 (1972))).

2016See Murdock v. Murdock, 338 S.C. 322, 334 , 526 S.E.2d 241, 248 (Ct. App. 1999) ("It is a fundamental doctrine of the law that a party whose personal rights are to be affected by a personal judgment must have a day in court, or opportunity to be heard, and that without due notice and opportunity to be heard a court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such personal rights." (emphasis added) (quoting Webster v. Clanton, 259 S.C. 387, 391 , 192 S.E.2d 214, 216 (1972))).

2012Best Interests of the Child South Carolina courts have a long history of determining custody disputes based on the “best interests of the child.” See Hooper v. Rockwell, 334 S.C. 281, 295 , 513 S.E.2d 358, 366 (1999) (“This Court long has tried to decide all matters involving the custody or care of children in ‘light of the fundamental principle that the controlling consideration is the best interests of the child.’ ” (quoting In Re Doran, 129 S.C. 26 , 31, 123 S.E. 501, 503 (1924))).

2012Best Interests of the Child South Carolina courts have a long history of determining custody disputes based on the “best interests of the child.” See Hooper v. Rockwell, 334 S.C. 281, 295 , 513 S.E.2d 358, 366 (1999) (“This Court long has tried to decide all matters involving the custody or care of children in ‘light of the fundamental principle that the controlling consideration is the best interests of the child.’ ” (quoting In Re Doran, 129 S.C. 26 , 31, 123 S.E. 501, 503 (1924))).

2026"A fundamental principle of appellate procedure is that a challenged decision must be both erroneous and prejudicial to warrant reversal." In re Care & Treatment of Gonzalez, 409 S.C. 621, 636 , 763 S.E.2d 210, 217 (2014).

2026"A fundamental principle of appellate procedure is that a challenged decision must be both erroneous and prejudicial to warrant reversal." In re Care & Treatment of Gonzalez, 409 S.C. 621, 636 , 763 S.E.2d 210, 217 (2014).

2025Bank of South Carolina v. Soden, 333 S.C. 554, 566 , 511 S.E.2d 372, 378 (Ct. App. 1998) ("It is a fundamental rule of law that an appellate court will affirm a ruling by a lower court if the offended party does not challenge that ruling."); Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR ("Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of the issues on appeal."); Bruno v. Pendleton Realty Co., 240 S.C. 46, 51-52 , 124 S.E.2d 580, 583 (1962) ("[W]here a dangerous condition in premises is latent and . . . the owner knew or should have known, and [the condition] is unknown to invitees,

2025Bank of South Carolina v. Soden, 333 S.C. 554, 566 , 511 S.E.2d 372, 378 (Ct. App. 1998) ("It is a fundamental rule of law that an appellate court will affirm a ruling by a lower court if the offended party does not challenge that ruling."); Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR ("Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of the issues on appeal."); Bruno v. Pendleton Realty Co., 240 S.C. 46, 51-52 , 124 S.E.2d 580, 583 (1962) ("[W]here a dangerous condition in premises is latent and . . . the owner knew or should have known, and [the condition] is unknown to invitees,

2022See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Draper, 405 S.C. 214, 220 , 746 S.E.2d 478, 480-81 (Ct. App. 2013) ("Standing is a fundamental requirement for instituting an action." (quoting Brock v. Bennett, 313 S.C. 513, 519 , 443 S.E.2d 409, 412 (Ct. App. 1994))); id. at 219, 746 S.E.2d at 480 ("Standing refers to a party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right." (quoting Powell ex rel.

2022See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Draper, 405 S.C. 214, 220 , 746 S.E.2d 478, 480-81 (Ct. App. 2013) ("Standing is a fundamental requirement for instituting an action." (quoting Brock v. Bennett, 313 S.C. 513, 519 , 443 S.E.2d 409, 412 (Ct. App. 1994))); id. at 219, 746 S.E.2d at 480 ("Standing refers to a party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right." (quoting Powell ex rel.

2012Best Interests of the Child South Carolina courts have a long history of determining custody disputes based on the “best interests of the child.” See Hooper v. Rockwell, 334 S.C. 281, 295 , 513 S.E.2d 358, 366 (1999) (“This Court long has tried to decide all matters involving the custody or care of children in ‘light of the fundamental principle that the controlling consideration is the best interests of the child.’ ” (quoting In Re Doran, 129 S.C. 26 , 31, 123 S.E. 501, 503 (1924))).

2012Best Interests of the Child South Carolina courts have a long history of determining custody disputes based on the “best interests of the child.” See Hooper v. Rockwell, 334 S.C. 281, 295 , 513 S.E.2d 358, 366 (1999) (“This Court long has tried to decide all matters involving the custody or care of children in ‘light of the fundamental principle that the controlling consideration is the best interests of the child.’ ” (quoting In Re Doran, 129 S.C. 26 , 31, 123 S.E. 501, 503 (1924))).

2025Servs. v. Beeks, 325 S.C. 243 , 246, 481 S.E.2d 703 , 705 (1997) ("The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.").

2025Servs. v. Beeks, 325 S.C. 243 , 246, 481 S.E.2d 703 , 705 (1997) ("The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.").

2024"The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Wilson, 352 S.C. at 452 , 574 S.E.2d at 734 . 404 S.C. 553, 558 , 745 S.E.2d 137, 140 (Ct. App. 2013).

2024"The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Wilson, 352 S.C. at 452 , 574 S.E.2d at 734 . 404 S.C. 553, 558 , 745 S.E.2d 137, 140 (Ct. App. 2013).

2015Carolina Livestock Mkt., Inc., 289 S.C. 309, 313 , 345 S.E.2d 485, 488 (1986) ("The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. ("Due process does not mandate any particular form of procedure."); id. ("Instead, due process is a flexible concept, and the requirements of due process in a particular case are dependent upon the importance of the interest involved and the circumstances under which the deprivation may occur."); Hill v. Dotts, 345 S.C. 304, 310 , 547 S.E.2d 894, 897 (C

2015Carolina Livestock Mkt., Inc., 289 S.C. 309, 313 , 345 S.E.2d 485, 488 (1986) ("The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. ("Due process does not mandate any particular form of procedure."); id. ("Instead, due process is a flexible concept, and the requirements of due process in a particular case are dependent upon the importance of the interest involved and the circumstances under which the deprivation may occur."); Hill v. Dotts, 345 S.C. 304, 310 , 547 S.E.2d 894, 897 (C

2022See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Draper, 405 S.C. 214, 220 , 746 S.E.2d 478, 480-81 (Ct. App. 2013) ("Standing is a fundamental requirement for instituting an action." (quoting Brock v. Bennett, 313 S.C. 513, 519 , 443 S.E.2d 409, 412 (Ct. App. 1994))); id. at 219, 746 S.E.2d at 480 ("Standing refers to a party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right." (quoting Powell ex rel.

2022See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Draper, 405 S.C. 214, 220 , 746 S.E.2d 478, 480-81 (Ct. App. 2013) ("Standing is a fundamental requirement for instituting an action." (quoting Brock v. Bennett, 313 S.C. 513, 519 , 443 S.E.2d 409, 412 (Ct. App. 1994))); id. at 219, 746 S.E.2d at 480 ("Standing refers to a party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right." (quoting Powell ex rel.

2002South Carolina Dep’t of Social Servs. v. Holden, 319 S.C. 72 , 459 S.E.2d 846 (1995).

2002South Carolina Dep’t of Social Servs. v. Holden, 319 S.C. 72 , 459 S.E.2d 846 (1995).

2025Trs. for the State v. Pickens Roofing & Sheet Metals, Inc., 418 S.C. 142, 168 , 791 S.E.2d 152, 166 (Ct. App. 2016) ("It is a fundamental rule of law in this state that there can be no double recovery for a single wrong." (quoting Inman v. Imperial Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 303 S.C. 10, 13 , 397 S.E.2d 774, 776 (Ct. App. 1990))); see also First S. Bank v. Fifth Third Bank NA, 631 F. App'x 121, 126 (4th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (holding that because the parties stipulated to an amount owed that included prejudgment interest, "any award of additional prejudgment interest would amount to a windfall

2025Trs. for the State v. Pickens Roofing & Sheet Metals, Inc., 418 S.C. 142, 168 , 791 S.E.2d 152, 166 (Ct. App. 2016) ("It is a fundamental rule of law in this state that there can be no double recovery for a single wrong." (quoting Inman v. Imperial Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 303 S.C. 10, 13 , 397 S.E.2d 774, 776 (Ct. App. 1990))); see also First S. Bank v. Fifth Third Bank NA, 631 F. App'x 121, 126 (4th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (holding that because the parties stipulated to an amount owed that included prejudgment interest, "any award of additional prejudgment interest would amount to a windfall

2024Dep't of Health & Env't Control, 389 S.C. 1 , 22 n.11, 698 S.E.2d 612 , 623 n.11 (2010) ("[T]he circuit court has the authority to hear motions to alter or amend when it sits in an appellate capacity and such motions are required to preserve issues for appeal where the circuit court fails to rule on an issue."); Lindsay v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 338 , 491 S.E.2d 583, 588 (Ct. App. 1997) ("It is a fundamental rule of law that an appellate court will affirm a ruling by a lower court if the offended party does not challenge that ruling.").

2024Dep't of Health & Env't Control, 389 S.C. 1 , 22 n.11, 698 S.E.2d 612 , 623 n.11 (2010) ("[T]he circuit court has the authority to hear motions to alter or amend when it sits in an appellate capacity and such motions are required to preserve issues for appeal where the circuit court fails to rule on an issue."); Lindsay v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 338 , 491 S.E.2d 583, 588 (Ct. App. 1997) ("It is a fundamental rule of law that an appellate court will affirm a ruling by a lower court if the offended party does not challenge that ruling.").

2023Party, 552 U.S. 442, 450 (2008) ("Facial challenges . . . run contrary to the fundamental principle of judicial restraint that courts should neither anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it nor formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied." (cleaned up)).

2016See also Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 450-51 , 128 S.Ct. 1184, 1191 , 170 L.Ed.2d 151, 161 (2008) (reciting “the fundamental principle of judicial restraint that courts should neither ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it’ nor ‘formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied’ ” (quoting Ashwander v. TVA, 297 *281 U.S. 288, 346-347, 56 S.Ct. 466, 483 , 80 L.Ed. 688, 711 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring))).

2022Kelley v. Bank of Am., 379 S.C. 437, 444 , 665 S.E.2d 237, 241 (Ct. App. 2008))); id. at 220, 746 S.E.2d at 481 ("Generally, a party must be a real party in interest to the litigation to have standing." (quoting Hill v. S.C.

2022Kelley v. Bank of Am., 379 S.C. 437, 444 , 665 S.E.2d 237, 241 (Ct. App. 2008))); id. at 220, 746 S.E.2d at 481 ("Generally, a party must be a real party in interest to the litigation to have standing." (quoting Hill v. S.C.

2021When determining whether a statutory provision can be severed, we consider "whether the constitutional portion of the statute remains complete in itself, wholly independent of that which is rejected, and is of such a character that it may amendments . . . ."); LeRoux v. Sec'y of State, 640 N.W.2d 849, 861 (Mich. 2002) ("It is a fundamental principle that one Legislature cannot bind a future Legislature or limit its power to amend or repeal statutes."); John C.

2021When determining whether a statutory provision can be severed, we consider "whether the constitutional portion of the statute remains complete in itself, wholly independent of that which is rejected, and is of such a character that it may amendments . . . ."); LeRoux v. Sec'y of State, 640 N.W.2d 849, 861 (Mich. 2002) ("It is a fundamental principle that one Legislature cannot bind a future Legislature or limit its power to amend or repeal statutes."); John C.

2019State v. Pickens Roofing & Sheet Metals, Inc., 418 S.C. 142, 159 , 791 S.E.2d 152, 161 (Ct. App. 2016) ("A litigant's right to an impartial jury is a fundamental principle of our legal system." (quoting Burke v. AnMed Health, 393 S.C. 48, 52 , 710 S.E.2d 84, 86 (Ct. App. 2011))); State v. Coaxum, 410 S.C. 320, 327 , 764 S.E.2d 242, 245 (2014) ("To protect both parties' right to an impartial jury, the [circuit] court must conduct voir dire of the prospective jurors to determinate whether the jurors are aware of any bias or prejudice against a party, as well as to 'elicit such facts as will enab

2019State v. Pickens Roofing & Sheet Metals, Inc., 418 S.C. 142, 159 , 791 S.E.2d 152, 161 (Ct. App. 2016) ("A litigant's right to an impartial jury is a fundamental principle of our legal system." (quoting Burke v. AnMed Health, 393 S.C. 48, 52 , 710 S.E.2d 84, 86 (Ct. App. 2011))); State v. Coaxum, 410 S.C. 320, 327 , 764 S.E.2d 242, 245 (2014) ("To protect both parties' right to an impartial jury, the [circuit] court must conduct voir dire of the prospective jurors to determinate whether the jurors are aware of any bias or prejudice against a party, as well as to 'elicit such facts as will enab

2016Actions § 101 (2005))); Brock v. Bennett, 313 S.C. 513, 519 , 443 S.E.2d 409, 412 (Ct. App. 1994) ("Standing is a fundamental requirement for instituting an action."); Sloan v. Friends of the Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 28 , 630 S.E.2d 474, 479 (2006) ("Generally, a party must be a real party in interest to the litigation to have standing."); id. ("A real party in interest is a party with a real, material, or substantial interest in the outcome of the litigation."); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Draper, 405 S.C. 214, 220 , 746 S.E.2d 478, 481 (Ct. App. 2013) ("It is ownership of the right sought to be e

2016Actions § 101 (2005))); Brock v. Bennett, 313 S.C. 513, 519 , 443 S.E.2d 409, 412 (Ct. App. 1994) ("Standing is a fundamental requirement for instituting an action."); Sloan v. Friends of the Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 28 , 630 S.E.2d 474, 479 (2006) ("Generally, a party must be a real party in interest to the litigation to have standing."); id. ("A real party in interest is a party with a real, material, or substantial interest in the outcome of the litigation."); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Draper, 405 S.C. 214, 220 , 746 S.E.2d 478, 481 (Ct. App. 2013) ("It is ownership of the right sought to be e

2026"A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required." F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 , 132 S. Ct. 2307, 2317 , 183 L.

2026"A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required." F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 , 132 S. Ct. 2307, 2317 , 183 L.

2025Trs. for the State v. Pickens Roofing & Sheet Metals, Inc., 418 S.C. 142, 168 , 791 S.E.2d 152, 166 (Ct. App. 2016) ("It is a fundamental rule of law in this state that there can be no double recovery for a single wrong." (quoting Inman v. Imperial Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 303 S.C. 10, 13 , 397 S.E.2d 774, 776 (Ct. App. 1990))); see also First S. Bank v. Fifth Third Bank NA, 631 F. App'x 121, 126 (4th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (holding that because the parties stipulated to an amount owed that included prejudgment interest, "any award of additional prejudgment interest would amount to a windfall

2025Trs. for the State v. Pickens Roofing & Sheet Metals, Inc., 418 S.C. 142, 168 , 791 S.E.2d 152, 166 (Ct. App. 2016) ("It is a fundamental rule of law in this state that there can be no double recovery for a single wrong." (quoting Inman v. Imperial Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 303 S.C. 10, 13 , 397 S.E.2d 774, 776 (Ct. App. 1990))); see also First S. Bank v. Fifth Third Bank NA, 631 F. App'x 121, 126 (4th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (holding that because the parties stipulated to an amount owed that included prejudgment interest, "any award of additional prejudgment interest would amount to a windfall