waiver of the alleged error in South Carolina

2025Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301 , 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) ("[I]t is a litigant's duty to bring to the court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error.").

2025Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301 , 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) ("[I]t is a litigant's duty to bring to the court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error.").

2025See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."); see also Moses v. State, 442 S.C. 263 , 269, 898 S.E.2d 174 , 177 (Ct. App. 2024) ("[I]t is a litigant's duty to bring to the court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error." (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Geer, 391 S.C. 179, 193 , 705 S.E.2d 441, 448 (Ct. App. 2010))).

2025See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."); see also Moses v. State, 442 S.C. 263 , 269, 898 S.E.2d 174 , 177 (Ct. App. 2024) ("[I]t is a litigant's duty to bring to the court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error." (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Geer, 391 S.C. 179, 193 , 705 S.E.2d 441, 448 (Ct. App. 2010))).

2025See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."); see also Moses v. State, 442 S.C. 263 , 269, 898 S.E.2d 174 , 177 (Ct. App. 2024) ("[I]t is a litigant's duty to bring to the court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error." (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Geer, 391 S.C. 179, 193 , 705 S.E.2d 441, 448 (Ct. App. 2010))).

2025See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."); see also Moses v. State, 442 S.C. 263 , 269, 898 S.E.2d 174 , 177 (Ct. App. 2024) ("[I]t is a litigant's duty to bring to the court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error." (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Geer, 391 S.C. 179, 193 , 705 S.E.2d 441, 448 (Ct. App. 2010))).

2007Parks v. Morris Homes Corp., 245 S.C. 461, 471 , 141 S.E.2d 129, 134 (1965).

1975As stated in Williams : “This discretion will not be controlled except where it appears that the manner in which the judge exercised the right tended to unduly impress the jury with the importance of the testimony elicited, or would be likely to lead the jury to suppose that the judge was of the opinion that one party rather than the other was correct upon a particular issue of fact.” The defendant contends, however, that plaintiff failed to object during the trial to the questions and comments by the judge and that the failure to do so amounted to a waiver of the alleged error, relying upon t

2018With regard to the second argument: Pee Dee Stores, Inc. v. Doyle, 381 S.C. 234, 241 , 672 S.E.2d 799, 802 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In South Carolina jurisprudence, settlement agreements are viewed as contracts."); Patricia Grand Hotel, LLC v. MacGuire Enter., Inc., 372 S.C. 634, 640 , 643 S.E.2d 692, 695 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[T]he circuit court's role in determining the actual terms of [a] settlement agreement between the parties is similar to the court's role in interpreting the terms of a contract."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 628 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 317 (Ct. App. 2004) ("[W]here an agreement is

2018With regard to the second argument: Pee Dee Stores, Inc. v. Doyle, 381 S.C. 234, 241 , 672 S.E.2d 799, 802 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In South Carolina jurisprudence, settlement agreements are viewed as contracts."); Patricia Grand Hotel, LLC v. MacGuire Enter., Inc., 372 S.C. 634, 640 , 643 S.E.2d 692, 695 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[T]he circuit court's role in determining the actual terms of [a] settlement agreement between the parties is similar to the court's role in interpreting the terms of a contract."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 628 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 317 (Ct. App. 2004) ("[W]here an agreement is

2018With regard to the second argument: Pee Dee Stores, Inc. v. Doyle, 381 S.C. 234, 241 , 672 S.E.2d 799, 802 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In South Carolina jurisprudence, settlement agreements are viewed as contracts."); Patricia Grand Hotel, LLC v. MacGuire Enter., Inc., 372 S.C. 634, 640 , 643 S.E.2d 692, 695 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[T]he circuit court's role in determining the actual terms of [a] settlement agreement between the parties is similar to the court's role in interpreting the terms of a contract."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 628 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 317 (Ct. App. 2004) ("[W]here an agreement is

2018With regard to the second argument: Pee Dee Stores, Inc. v. Doyle, 381 S.C. 234, 241 , 672 S.E.2d 799, 802 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In South Carolina jurisprudence, settlement agreements are viewed as contracts."); Patricia Grand Hotel, LLC v. MacGuire Enter., Inc., 372 S.C. 634, 640 , 643 S.E.2d 692, 695 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[T]he circuit court's role in determining the actual terms of [a] settlement agreement between the parties is similar to the court's role in interpreting the terms of a contract."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 628 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 317 (Ct. App. 2004) ("[W]here an agreement is

2018With regard to the second argument: Pee Dee Stores, Inc. v. Doyle, 381 S.C. 234, 241 , 672 S.E.2d 799, 802 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In South Carolina jurisprudence, settlement agreements are viewed as contracts."); Patricia Grand Hotel, LLC v. MacGuire Enter., Inc., 372 S.C. 634, 640 , 643 S.E.2d 692, 695 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[T]he circuit court's role in determining the actual terms of [a] settlement agreement between the parties is similar to the court's role in interpreting the terms of a contract."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 628 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 317 (Ct. App. 2004) ("[W]here an agreement is

2018With regard to the second argument: Pee Dee Stores, Inc. v. Doyle, 381 S.C. 234, 241 , 672 S.E.2d 799, 802 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In South Carolina jurisprudence, settlement agreements are viewed as contracts."); Patricia Grand Hotel, LLC v. MacGuire Enter., Inc., 372 S.C. 634, 640 , 643 S.E.2d 692, 695 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[T]he circuit court's role in determining the actual terms of [a] settlement agreement between the parties is similar to the court's role in interpreting the terms of a contract."); Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 628 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 317 (Ct. App. 2004) ("[W]here an agreement is

2013See First Carolina, 372 S.C. at 301 , 641 S.E.2d at 907 ("[I]t is a litigant's duty to bring to the court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error."); id. ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review." (citation omitted)); cf. State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 195 , 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (holding that because counsel acquiesced in the trial court's ruling regarding his request for the solicitor's enti

2013See First Carolina, 372 S.C. at 301 , 641 S.E.2d at 907 ("[I]t is a litigant's duty to bring to the court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error."); id. ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review." (citation omitted)); cf. State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 195 , 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (holding that because counsel acquiesced in the trial court's ruling regarding his request for the solicitor's enti

2013See First Carolina, 372 S.C. at 301 , 641 S.E.2d at 907 ("[I]t is a litigant's duty to bring to the court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error."); id. ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review." (citation omitted)); cf. State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 195 , 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (holding that because counsel acquiesced in the trial court's ruling regarding his request for the solicitor's enti

2013See First Carolina, 372 S.C. at 301 , 641 S.E.2d at 907 ("[I]t is a litigant's duty to bring to the court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error."); id. ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review." (citation omitted)); cf. State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 195 , 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (holding that because counsel acquiesced in the trial court's ruling regarding his request for the solicitor's enti