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.
15 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
South Carolina Department of Transportation v. First Carolina Corp.green2 sentences2025Dep'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."). | 12 | 13 |
Wilder Corp. v. Wilkegreen2 sentences2025See 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))). | 6 | 6 |
State v. Geergreen2 sentences2025See 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))). | 3 | 3 |
Pee Dee Stores, Inc. v. Doylegreen2 sentences2018With 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 | 1 | 1 |
Messer v. Messergreen2 sentences2018With 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 | 1 | 1 |
Patricia Grand Hotel, LLC v. MacGuire Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2018With 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 | 1 | 1 |
Hollins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2013See 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 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2013See 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 | 1 | 1 |
Parks v. Morris Homes Corp.green2 sentences2007Parks v. Morris Homes Corp., 245 S.C. 461, 471 , 141 S.E.2d 129, 134 (1965). 2007Parks v. Morris Homes Corp., 245 S.C. 461, 471 , 141 S.E.2d 129, 134 (1965). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sheppard
green
2 sentences2024"Instead, a party must have a contemporaneous and specific objection to preserve an issue for appellate review." Id. "[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." State v. Geer, 391 S.C. 179, 193 , 705 S.E.2d 441, 448 (Ct. App. 2010) (quoting S.C. 2024"Instead, a party must have a contemporaneous and specific objection to preserve an issue for appellate review." Id. "[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." State v. Geer, 391 S.C. 179, 193 , 705 S.E.2d 441, 448 (Ct. App. 2010) (quoting S.C. | 2 | 2024–2024 |