17 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pollard v. County of Florencegreen2 sentences2016See Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 207 , 584 S.E.2d 413, 418 (Ct. App. 2003) (stating the claimant must file a verified claim pursuant to section 15-78-80 of the South Carolina Code (2005 & Supp. 2015) for the three-year statute of limitations to apply); Pollard v. Cty. of Florence, 314 S.C. 397, 400 , 444 S.E.2d 534, 535 (Ct. App. 1994) ("[T]he 'verified claim' procedure must be strictly complied with in order to trigger the three-year limitations period."); Flateau, 355 S.C. at 208 , 584 S.E.2d at 418 (finding the two-year statute of limitations applied when the record did not contain e 2016See Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 207 , 584 S.E.2d 413, 418 (Ct. App. 2003) (stating the claimant must file a verified claim pursuant to section 15-78-80 of the South Carolina Code (2005 & Supp. 2015) for the three-year statute of limitations to apply); Pollard v. Cty. of Florence, 314 S.C. 397, 400 , 444 S.E.2d 534, 535 (Ct. App. 1994) ("[T]he 'verified claim' procedure must be strictly complied with in order to trigger the three-year limitations period."); Flateau, 355 S.C. at 208 , 584 S.E.2d at 418 (finding the two-year statute of limitations applied when the record did not contain e | 4 | 5 |
Vines v. Self Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2000See S.C.Code Ann. *189 §§ 15-78-30(b) & 15-78-80 (Supp.1999); Vines v. Self Mem’l Hosp., 314 S.C. 305 , 443 S.E.2d 909, 910 (1994) (the verified claim must set forth the extent and amount of the loss sustained); Rink v. Richland Mem’l Hosp., 310 S.C. 193 , 422 S.E.2d 747 (1992) (plaintiffs letter to hospital did not comply with statutory requirements, including the amount of the loss sustained). 2000See S.C.Code Ann. *189 §§ 15-78-30(b) & 15-78-80 (Supp.1999); Vines v. Self Mem’l Hosp., 314 S.C. 305 , 443 S.E.2d 909, 910 (1994) (the verified claim must set forth the extent and amount of the loss sustained); Rink v. Richland Mem’l Hosp., 310 S.C. 193 , 422 S.E.2d 747 (1992) (plaintiffs letter to hospital did not comply with statutory requirements, including the amount of the loss sustained). | 2 | 2 |
Logan v. CHEROKEE LANDSCAPING & GRADINGgreen2 sentences2018Code Ann. § 15-78-80 (d) (2005 & Supp. 2017) ("If filed, the [verified] claim must be received within one year after the loss was or should have been discovered."); Pollard v. Cty. of Florence, 314 S.C. 397, 400 , 444 S.E.2d 534, 536 (Ct. App. 1994) ("To satisfy the verification requirement, the claim must be under oath[.]"); id. at 401 , 444 S.E.2d at 53 ("A document that is not verified does not qualify as a 'claim' under [the Act]."); Logan v. Cherokee Landscaping & Grading Co., 389 S.C. 611, 618 , 698 S.E.2d 879 , 883 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The courts of South Carolina apply the 'discovery rule 2018Code Ann. § 15-78-80 (d) (2005 & Supp. 2017) ("If filed, the [verified] claim must be received within one year after the loss was or should have been discovered."); Pollard v. Cty. of Florence, 314 S.C. 397, 400 , 444 S.E.2d 534, 536 (Ct. App. 1994) ("To satisfy the verification requirement, the claim must be under oath[.]"); id. at 401 , 444 S.E.2d at 53 ("A document that is not verified does not qualify as a 'claim' under [the Act]."); Logan v. Cherokee Landscaping & Grading Co., 389 S.C. 611, 618 , 698 S.E.2d 879 , 883 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The courts of South Carolina apply the 'discovery rule | 1 | 1 |
Flateau v. Harrelsongreen2 sentences2016See Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 207 , 584 S.E.2d 413, 418 (Ct. App. 2003) (stating the claimant must file a verified claim pursuant to section 15-78-80 of the South Carolina Code (2005 & Supp. 2015) for the three-year statute of limitations to apply); Pollard v. Cty. of Florence, 314 S.C. 397, 400 , 444 S.E.2d 534, 535 (Ct. App. 1994) ("[T]he 'verified claim' procedure must be strictly complied with in order to trigger the three-year limitations period."); Flateau, 355 S.C. at 208 , 584 S.E.2d at 418 (finding the two-year statute of limitations applied when the record did not contain e 2016See Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 207 , 584 S.E.2d 413, 418 (Ct. App. 2003) (stating the claimant must file a verified claim pursuant to section 15-78-80 of the South Carolina Code (2005 & Supp. 2015) for the three-year statute of limitations to apply); Pollard v. Cty. of Florence, 314 S.C. 397, 400 , 444 S.E.2d 534, 535 (Ct. App. 1994) ("[T]he 'verified claim' procedure must be strictly complied with in order to trigger the three-year limitations period."); Flateau, 355 S.C. at 208 , 584 S.E.2d at 418 (finding the two-year statute of limitations applied when the record did not contain e | 1 | 1 |
Kolb v. Cookgreen2 sentences2012In her Respondent’s brief, Quick relies on this court’s opinion in Kolb v. Cook, 284 S.C. 598, 602 , 327 S.E.2d 379, 382 (Ct.App.1985), in which we held a tort claimant seeking to recover damages from sources other than the distributable or distributed assets of the probate estate does not need to file a verified claim or account with the personal representative of the deceased tortfeasor. 2012In her Respondent’s brief, Quick relies on this court’s opinion in Kolb v. Cook, 284 S.C. 598, 602 , 327 S.E.2d 379, 382 (Ct.App.1985), in which we held a tort claimant seeking to recover damages from sources other than the distributable or distributed assets of the probate estate does not need to file a verified claim or account with the personal representative of the deceased tortfeasor. | 1 | 1 |
Hazard v. South Carolina State Highway Departmentgreen2 sentences2002S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-80 (Supp.2000) (concerning the requirements of filing a verified claim under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act); Hazard v. South Carolina State Highway Dep’t, 264 S.C. 386, 393 , 215 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1975) ("Since the filing of a claim is a condition precedent to the accrual of a cause of action, no vested right could be obtained by a victim of the governmental tort until the claim provisions of the statute have been complied with.”), overruled on other grounds by McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243 , 329 S.E.2d 741 (1985). 13 . 2002S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-80 (Supp.2000) (concerning the requirements of filing a verified claim under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act); Hazard v. South Carolina State Highway Dep’t, 264 S.C. 386, 393 , 215 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1975) ("Since the filing of a claim is a condition precedent to the accrual of a cause of action, no vested right could be obtained by a victim of the governmental tort until the claim provisions of the statute have been complied with.”), overruled on other grounds by McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243 , 329 S.E.2d 741 (1985). 13 . | 1 | 1 |
Cochran v. City of Sumtergreen2 sentences1992In addition, in a pre-Tort Claims Act case, this Court held that when a plaintiff seeks to sue a political subdivision he "must fully comply with the prescribed terms and conditions of the statute, and the filing of a claim as required ... is *197 an essential prerequisite to a right of action." Cochran v. City of Sumter , 242 S.C. 382, 386 , 131 S.E. (2d) 153, 155 (1963) (overruled to the extent that it holds an action may not be maintained against the State without its consent in McCall v. Batson , 285 S.C. 243 , 329 S.E. (2d) 741 (1985)). 1992In addition, in a pre-Tort Claims Act case, this Court held that when a plaintiff seeks to sue a political subdivision he "must fully comply with the prescribed terms and conditions of the statute, and the filing of a claim as required ... is *197 an essential prerequisite to a right of action." Cochran v. City of Sumter , 242 S.C. 382, 386 , 131 S.E. (2d) 153, 155 (1963) (overruled to the extent that it holds an action may not be maintained against the State without its consent in McCall v. Batson , 285 S.C. 243 , 329 S.E. (2d) 741 (1985)). | 1 | 1 |
United States Casualty Co. v. State Highway Departmentgreen1 sentence1963See also United *386 States Casualty Co. v. State Highway Department of South Carolina, 155 S. C. 77, 151 S. E. 887 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Braudie v. Richland County
neutral
2 sentences1994S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-80(d) (Supp.1991). *912 In Braudie v. Richland County, 219 S.C. 130 , 64 S.E.2d 248 (1951).... [t]he claimant did not file a verified claim but through her attorney appeared before the appropriate commission and wrote a letter to the county commission setting forth the details of her injury within two months of her injury. 1994S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-80(d) (Supp.1991). *912 In Braudie v. Richland County, 219 S.C. 130 , 64 S.E.2d 248 (1951).... [t]he claimant did not file a verified claim but through her attorney appeared before the appropriate commission and wrote a letter to the county commission setting forth the details of her injury within two months of her injury. | 3 | 1991–1994 |
Searcy v. South Carolina Department of Education
green
2 sentences2000Div., 303 S.C. 544 , 402 S.E.2d 486 (Ct.App.1991) (under § 15-78-110 the two year statute of limitations applies if a verified claim is not filed). 2000Div., 303 S.C. 544 , 402 S.E.2d 486 (Ct.App.1991) (under § 15-78-110 the two year statute of limitations applies if a verified claim is not filed). | 2 | 2000–2023 |
McCall v. Batson
red
2 sentences2002S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-80 (Supp.2000) (concerning the requirements of filing a verified claim under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act); Hazard v. South Carolina State Highway Dep’t, 264 S.C. 386, 393 , 215 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1975) ("Since the filing of a claim is a condition precedent to the accrual of a cause of action, no vested right could be obtained by a victim of the governmental tort until the claim provisions of the statute have been complied with.”), overruled on other grounds by McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243 , 329 S.E.2d 741 (1985). 13 . 2002S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-80 (Supp.2000) (concerning the requirements of filing a verified claim under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act); Hazard v. South Carolina State Highway Dep’t, 264 S.C. 386, 393 , 215 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1975) ("Since the filing of a claim is a condition precedent to the accrual of a cause of action, no vested right could be obtained by a victim of the governmental tort until the claim provisions of the statute have been complied with.”), overruled on other grounds by McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243 , 329 S.E.2d 741 (1985). 13 . | 2 | 1992–2002 |
Gillman v. City of Beaufort
green
2 sentences2018Code Ann. § 15-78-80 (d) (2005 & Supp. 2017) ("If filed, the [verified] claim must be received within one year after the loss was or should have been discovered."); Pollard v. Cty. of Florence, 314 S.C. 397, 400 , 444 S.E.2d 534, 536 (Ct. App. 1994) ("To satisfy the verification requirement, the claim must be under oath[.]"); id. at 401 , 444 S.E.2d at 53 ("A document that is not verified does not qualify as a 'claim' under [the Act]."); Logan v. Cherokee Landscaping & Grading Co., 389 S.C. 611, 618 , 698 S.E.2d 879 , 883 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The courts of South Carolina apply the 'discovery rule 2018Code Ann. § 15-78-80 (d) (2005 & Supp. 2017) ("If filed, the [verified] claim must be received within one year after the loss was or should have been discovered."); Pollard v. Cty. of Florence, 314 S.C. 397, 400 , 444 S.E.2d 534, 536 (Ct. App. 1994) ("To satisfy the verification requirement, the claim must be under oath[.]"); id. at 401 , 444 S.E.2d at 53 ("A document that is not verified does not qualify as a 'claim' under [the Act]."); Logan v. Cherokee Landscaping & Grading Co., 389 S.C. 611, 618 , 698 S.E.2d 879 , 883 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The courts of South Carolina apply the 'discovery rule | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Joubert v. South Carolina Department of Social Services
green
2 sentences2003Joubert, 341 S.C. at 186 , *208 534 S.E.2d at 6 . 2003Joubert, 341 S.C. at 186 , *208 534 S.E.2d at 6 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Hinson
neutral
2 sentences2002See Rule 203, SCACR (requiring the service and filing of a notice of appeal by a party intending to appeal a decision); State v. Hinson, 303 S.C. 92 , 399 S.E.2d 422 (1990) (holding the appellant's failure to timely serve a notice of intent to appeal deprived the supreme court of jurisdiction to consider the matter). 14 . 2002See Rule 203, SCACR (requiring the service and filing of a notice of appeal by a party intending to appeal a decision); State v. Hinson, 303 S.C. 92 , 399 S.E.2d 422 (1990) (holding the appellant's failure to timely serve a notice of intent to appeal deprived the supreme court of jurisdiction to consider the matter). 14 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Rink v. Richland Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences2000See S.C.Code Ann. *189 §§ 15-78-30(b) & 15-78-80 (Supp.1999); Vines v. Self Mem’l Hosp., 314 S.C. 305 , 443 S.E.2d 909, 910 (1994) (the verified claim must set forth the extent and amount of the loss sustained); Rink v. Richland Mem’l Hosp., 310 S.C. 193 , 422 S.E.2d 747 (1992) (plaintiffs letter to hospital did not comply with statutory requirements, including the amount of the loss sustained). 2000See S.C.Code Ann. *189 §§ 15-78-30(b) & 15-78-80 (Supp.1999); Vines v. Self Mem’l Hosp., 314 S.C. 305 , 443 S.E.2d 909, 910 (1994) (the verified claim must set forth the extent and amount of the loss sustained); Rink v. Richland Mem’l Hosp., 310 S.C. 193 , 422 S.E.2d 747 (1992) (plaintiffs letter to hospital did not comply with statutory requirements, including the amount of the loss sustained). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
In re Wood
neutral
2 sentences1997In In re Gary Michael Wood, 278 S.C. 431 , 298 S.E.2d 89 (1982), the Court indefinitely suspended an attorney who had failed to file a verified claim in a personal injury action against a governmental agency, leading to the claim being dismissed. 1997In In re Gary Michael Wood, 278 S.C. 431 , 298 S.E.2d 89 (1982), the Court indefinitely suspended an attorney who had failed to file a verified claim in a personal injury action against a governmental agency, leading to the claim being dismissed. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Cosgrove v. Butler
green
1 sentence1995Cosgrove v. Butler, 1 S.C. 241 (1869). 5 Here, when Graham failed to answer Thomas & Howard’s verified complaint, the claim for attorney’s fees was in the same status as was the verified claim on the open account. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Morgan's, Inc. v. Surinam Lumber Corp.
green
1 sentence1995Morgan’s Inc., v. Surinam Lumber Co., 251 *292 S.C. 61, 160 S.E. (2d) 191 (1968) (a defendant’s failure to answer the plaintiff’s verified statement puts the plaintiff in the same status as having a liquidated demand). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
A. McCoy's, Inc. v. Garner
green
1 sentence1985McCoy’s, Inc. v. Garner, 281 S. C. 378, 315 S. E. (2d) 812 (S. C. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
In Re the Estate of Miles
green
2 sentences1985Williams v. Grossman, 409 Mich. 67 , 293 N. W. (2d) 315 (1980); In Re Miles’ Estate, 262 N. C. 647 , 138 S. E. (2d) 487 (1964). 1985Williams v. Grossman, 409 Mich. 67 , 293 N. W. (2d) 315 (1980); In Re Miles’ Estate, 262 N. C. 647 , 138 S. E. (2d) 487 (1964). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Williams v. Grossman
green
2 sentences1985Williams v. Grossman, 409 Mich. 67 , 293 N. W. (2d) 315 (1980); In Re Miles’ Estate, 262 N. C. 647 , 138 S. E. (2d) 487 (1964). 1985Williams v. Grossman, 409 Mich. 67 , 293 N. W. (2d) 315 (1980); In Re Miles’ Estate, 262 N. C. 647 , 138 S. E. (2d) 487 (1964). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Rushton v. South Carolina State Highway Department
neutral
1 sentence1963The lower Court in reaching its decision strongly relied upon Rushton v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 207 S. C. 112, 34 S. E. (2d) 484 , in which filing of a verified claim within 180 days was required by the Statute. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.