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.
20 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Glasscock v. Glasscockgreen2 sentences2023Once the family court has determined that an award is proper, it must consider the following factors to determine the reasonableness of the amount: "(1) the nature, extent, and difficulty of the case; (2) the time necessarily devoted to the case; (3) professional standing of counsel; (4) contingency of compensation; (5) beneficial results obtained; [and] (6) customary legal fees for similar services." Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 161 , 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991) (Glasscock factors). 2023Once the family court has determined that an award is proper, it must consider the following factors to determine the reasonableness of the amount: "(1) the nature, extent, and difficulty of the case; (2) the time necessarily devoted to the case; (3) professional standing of counsel; (4) contingency of compensation; (5) beneficial results obtained; [and] (6) customary legal fees for similar services." Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 161 , 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991) (Glasscock factors). | 12 | 13 |
Dickert v. Dickertgreen2 sentences2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons 2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons | 4 | 4 |
Edm v. Tamgreen2 sentences2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons 2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons | 3 | 3 |
State v. Evansgreen2 sentences2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons 2020See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be considered: (1) the party's ability to pay [his] own attorney's fee; (2) | 2 | 2 |
Chisholm v. Chisholmgreen2 sentences2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons 2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons | 2 | 2 |
Griffith v. Griffithgreen2 sentences2012See Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 646 , 506 S.E.2d 526 , 534- 35 (Ct. App. 1998) (noting the family court order awarding attorney's fees must set forth specific findings of fact for each of the required factors). 2012See Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 646 , 506 S.E.2d 526 , 534- 35 (Ct. App. 1998) (noting the family court order awarding attorney's fees must set forth specific findings of fact for each of the required factors). | 2 | 2 |
Henggeler v. Hansongreen2 sentences2005See Henggeler v. Hanson, 333 S.C. 598, 605 , 510 S.E.2d 722, 726 (Ct.App.1998) (finding no abuse of discretion in awarding attorney’s fees when the family court considered the Glasscock factors). 2005See Henggeler v. Hanson, 333 S.C. 598, 605 , 510 S.E.2d 722, 726 (Ct.App.1998) (finding no abuse of discretion in awarding attorney’s fees when the family court considered the Glasscock factors). | 2 | 2 |
Bodkin v. Bodkingreen2 sentences2023See Bodkin, 388 S.C. at 223 , 694 S.E.2d at 241 . ("[W]hen parties fail to cooperate and their behavior prolongs proceedings, this is a basis for holding them responsible for attorney's fees."). 2023See Bodkin, 388 S.C. at 223 , 694 S.E.2d at 241 . ("[W]hen parties fail to cooperate and their behavior prolongs proceedings, this is a basis for holding them responsible for attorney's fees."). | 1 | 1 |
Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc.green2 sentences2021Cf. Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc., 310 S.C. 492, 494 , 427 S.E.2d 659, 661 (1993) ("On appeal, absent sufficient evidentiary support on the record for each [attorney's fees] factor, the award should be reversed and the issue remanded for the trial court to make specific findings of fact."); Glasscock, 304 S.C. at 161 , 403 S.E.2d at 315 (stating a court should consider the following factors when determining the amount of reasonable attorney's fees: "(1) the nature, extent, and difficulty of the case; (2) the time necessarily devoted to the case; (3) professional standing of counsel; (4) contingency 2021Cf. Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc., 310 S.C. 492, 494 , 427 S.E.2d 659, 661 (1993) ("On appeal, absent sufficient evidentiary support on the record for each [attorney's fees] factor, the award should be reversed and the issue remanded for the trial court to make specific findings of fact."); Glasscock, 304 S.C. at 161 , 403 S.E.2d at 315 (stating a court should consider the following factors when determining the amount of reasonable attorney's fees: "(1) the nature, extent, and difficulty of the case; (2) the time necessarily devoted to the case; (3) professional standing of counsel; (4) contingency | 1 | 1 |
State v. Richburggreen1 sentence2020See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be considered: (1) the party's ability to pay [his] own attorney's fee; (2) | 1 | 1 |
High v. Highgreen2 sentences2011As to whether the family court erred by awarding Wife $4,504.62 in attorney's fees in connection to Wife's motion to compel, we find no error.[1] See High v. High , 389 S.C. 226, 249 , 697 S.E.2d 690, 702 (Ct. App. 2010) (providing the award of attorney's fees in a domestic action rests within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion); Dickert v. Dickert , 387 S.C. 1 , 1011, 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees when it properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock fac 2011As to whether the family court erred by awarding Wife $4,504.62 in attorney's fees in connection to Wife's motion to compel, we find no error.[1] See High v. High , 389 S.C. 226, 249 , 697 S.E.2d 690, 702 (Ct. App. 2010) (providing the award of attorney's fees in a domestic action rests within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion); Dickert v. Dickert , 387 S.C. 1 , 1011, 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees when it properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock fac | 1 | 1 |
Holcombe v. Hardeegreen2 sentences2008The family court should comply with Rule 26(a), SCRFC, which states, “An order or judgment pursuant to an adjudication in a domestic relations case shall set forth the specific findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the court’s decision.” Holcombe v. Hardee, 304 S.C. 522, 524 , 405 S.E.2d 821, 822 (1991) (reversing and remanding a ease back to the family court because the family court’s order failed to comply with Rule 26(a), SCRFC, in that the family court listed the factors to be considered for child support and stated it had considered them but failed to make findings of facts c 2008The family court should comply with Rule 26(a), SCRFC, which states, “An order or judgment pursuant to an adjudication in a domestic relations case shall set forth the specific findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the court’s decision.” Holcombe v. Hardee, 304 S.C. 522, 524 , 405 S.E.2d 821, 822 (1991) (reversing and remanding a ease back to the family court because the family court’s order failed to comply with Rule 26(a), SCRFC, in that the family court listed the factors to be considered for child support and stated it had considered them but failed to make findings of facts c | 1 | 1 |
Widdicombe v. Tucker-Calesgreen2 sentences2007Widdicombe v. Tucker-Cales , 366 S.C. 75, 92 , 620 S.E.2d 333, 342 (Ct. App. 2005). 2007Widdicombe v. Tucker-Cales , 366 S.C. 75, 92 , 620 S.E.2d 333, 342 (Ct. App. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Messer v. Messergreen2 sentences2006Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 161 , 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991); Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 222 , 612 S.E.2d 456, 461-62 (Ct.App.2005); see also Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 633 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 320 (Ct.App.2004) (refusing to find an abuse of discretion as to award of attorney’s fees when the family court analyzed each of the factors, detailed its findings in its final order, and those findings were supported by affidavits). *89 Applying the Glasscock factors, the family court noted this litigation involved multiple issues, lasted five days, and transpired over a three month pe 2006Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 161 , 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991); Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 222 , 612 S.E.2d 456, 461-62 (Ct.App.2005); see also Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 633 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 320 (Ct.App.2004) (refusing to find an abuse of discretion as to award of attorney’s fees when the family court analyzed each of the factors, detailed its findings in its final order, and those findings were supported by affidavits). *89 Applying the Glasscock factors, the family court noted this litigation involved multiple issues, lasted five days, and transpired over a three month pe | 1 | 1 |
Lanier v. Laniergreen2 sentences2006Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 161 , 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991); Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 222 , 612 S.E.2d 456, 461-62 (Ct.App.2005); see also Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 633 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 320 (Ct.App.2004) (refusing to find an abuse of discretion as to award of attorney’s fees when the family court analyzed each of the factors, detailed its findings in its final order, and those findings were supported by affidavits). *89 Applying the Glasscock factors, the family court noted this litigation involved multiple issues, lasted five days, and transpired over a three month pe 2006Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 161 , 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991); Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 222 , 612 S.E.2d 456, 461-62 (Ct.App.2005); see also Messer v. Messer, 359 S.C. 614, 633 , 598 S.E.2d 310, 320 (Ct.App.2004) (refusing to find an abuse of discretion as to award of attorney’s fees when the family court analyzed each of the factors, detailed its findings in its final order, and those findings were supported by affidavits). *89 Applying the Glasscock factors, the family court noted this litigation involved multiple issues, lasted five days, and transpired over a three month pe | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Speedgreen2 sentences2005Jackson v. Speed, 326 S.C. 289, 308 , 486 S.E.2d 750, 760 (1997). 2005Jackson v. Speed, 326 S.C. 289, 308 , 486 S.E.2d 750, 760 (1997). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Doe
green
2 sentences2014While the family court’s decision to award attorney’s fees is generally within its discretion, Doe, 319 S.C. at 157 , 459 S.E.2d at 896 , we find the award of $50,000 in attorney’s fees to Husband is excessive and an abuse of discretion. 2014While the family court’s decision to award attorney’s fees is generally within its discretion, Doe, 319 S.C. at 157 , 459 S.E.2d at 896 , we find the award of $50,000 in attorney’s fees to Husband is excessive and an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Feldman v. Feldman
green
2 sentences2013In adjudicating Father’s claim for attorney’s fees, the family court held “... the award of [Father’s attorney’s fees is appropriate, and considering the factors enunciated in Feldman v. Feldman, 380 S.C. 538 , 670 S.E.2d 669 (Ct.App.2008) I order [Mother] to reimburse [Father] his attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,500.00, payable directly to [Father’s attorney at a rate of $400.00 per month.” In Feldman , this court outlined the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors listed above. 2013In adjudicating Father’s claim for attorney’s fees, the family court held “... the award of [Father’s attorney’s fees is appropriate, and considering the factors enunciated in Feldman v. Feldman, 380 S.C. 538 , 670 S.E.2d 669 (Ct.App.2008) I order [Mother] to reimburse [Father] his attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,500.00, payable directly to [Father’s attorney at a rate of $400.00 per month.” In Feldman , this court outlined the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors listed above. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Patel v. Patel
green
2 sentences2008The family court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Stepfather. 10 See Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515 , 599 S.E.2d 114 (2004) (an abuse of discretion occurs either when a court is controlled by some error of law, or where the order is based upon findings of fact lacking evidentiary support). 2008The family court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Stepfather. 10 See Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515 , 599 S.E.2d 114 (2004) (an abuse of discretion occurs either when a court is controlled by some error of law, or where the order is based upon findings of fact lacking evidentiary support). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.