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 1 courts 2011–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pinckney v. Warrengreen2 sentences2016Servs. v. Mary C., 396 S.C. 15, 26 , 720 S.E.2d 503, 509 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding it is proper to defer to the family court even if conflicting evidence is presented on appeal as long as ample evidence in the record supports the family court’s findings and conclusions); Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 387-88 , 544 S.E.2d 620, 623 (2001) (holding the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating error in the family court’s findings of fact); Lewis, 392 S.C. at 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d at 654 (stating the appellate court generally defers to the factual findings of the family court regarding credibi 2016Servs. v. Mary C., 396 S.C. 15, 26 , 720 S.E.2d 503, 509 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding it is proper to defer to the family court even if conflicting evidence is presented on appeal as long as ample evidence in the record supports the family court’s findings and conclusions); Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 387-88 , 544 S.E.2d 620, 623 (2001) (holding the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating error in the family court’s findings of fact); Lewis, 392 S.C. at 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d at 654 (stating the appellate court generally defers to the factual findings of the family court regarding credibi | 2 | 12 |
Holmes v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2016As to Issues 2 and 3: Sanders v. Sanders, 396 S.C. 410, 419 , 722 S.E.2d 15, 19 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In general, marital property that is subject to equitable distribution is valued as of the date the marital litigation is filed or commenced."); Roof v. Steele, 413 S.C. 543, 549 , 776 S.E.2d 392, 395 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The family court is a court of equity and on appeals therefrom the appellate court reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); id. ("However, this broad standard of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the factual findings of the family court, and the appellant 2016As to Issues 2 and 3: Sanders v. Sanders, 396 S.C. 410, 419 , 722 S.E.2d 15, 19 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In general, marital property that is subject to equitable distribution is valued as of the date the marital litigation is filed or commenced."); Roof v. Steele, 413 S.C. 543, 549 , 776 S.E.2d 392, 395 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The family court is a court of equity and on appeals therefrom the appellate court reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); id. ("However, this broad standard of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the factual findings of the family court, and the appellant | 2 | 3 |
South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Mary C.green2 sentences2016Servs. v. Mary C., 396 S.C. 15, 26 , 720 S.E.2d 503, 509 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding it is proper to defer to the family court even if conflicting evidence is presented on appeal as long as ample evidence in the record supports the family court’s findings and conclusions); Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 387-88 , 544 S.E.2d 620, 623 (2001) (holding the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating error in the family court’s findings of fact); Lewis, 392 S.C. at 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d at 654 (stating the appellate court generally defers to the factual findings of the family court regarding credibi 2016Servs. v. Mary C., 396 S.C. 15, 26 , 720 S.E.2d 503, 509 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding it is proper to defer to the family court even if conflicting evidence is presented on appeal as long as ample evidence in the record supports the family court’s findings and conclusions); Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 387-88 , 544 S.E.2d 620, 623 (2001) (holding the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating error in the family court’s findings of fact); Lewis, 392 S.C. at 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d at 654 (stating the appellate court generally defers to the factual findings of the family court regarding credibi | 2 | 2 |
Roof v. Steelegreen2 sentences2016As to Issues 2 and 3: Sanders v. Sanders, 396 S.C. 410, 419 , 722 S.E.2d 15, 19 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In general, marital property that is subject to equitable distribution is valued as of the date the marital litigation is filed or commenced."); Roof v. Steele, 413 S.C. 543, 549 , 776 S.E.2d 392, 395 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The family court is a court of equity and on appeals therefrom the appellate court reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); id. ("However, this broad standard of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the factual findings of the family court, and the appellant 2016As to Issues 2 and 3: Sanders v. Sanders, 396 S.C. 410, 419 , 722 S.E.2d 15, 19 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In general, marital property that is subject to equitable distribution is valued as of the date the marital litigation is filed or commenced."); Roof v. Steele, 413 S.C. 543, 549 , 776 S.E.2d 392, 395 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The family court is a court of equity and on appeals therefrom the appellate court reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); id. ("However, this broad standard of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the factual findings of the family court, and the appellant | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Dibblegreen2 sentences2016As to Issues 2 and 3: Sanders v. Sanders, 396 S.C. 410, 419 , 722 S.E.2d 15, 19 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In general, marital property that is subject to equitable distribution is valued as of the date the marital litigation is filed or commenced."); Roof v. Steele, 413 S.C. 543, 549 , 776 S.E.2d 392, 395 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The family court is a court of equity and on appeals therefrom the appellate court reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); id. ("However, this broad standard of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the factual findings of the family court, and the appellant 2016As to Issues 2 and 3: Sanders v. Sanders, 396 S.C. 410, 419 , 722 S.E.2d 15, 19 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In general, marital property that is subject to equitable distribution is valued as of the date the marital litigation is filed or commenced."); Roof v. Steele, 413 S.C. 543, 549 , 776 S.E.2d 392, 395 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The family court is a court of equity and on appeals therefrom the appellate court reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); id. ("However, this broad standard of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the factual findings of the family court, and the appellant | 1 | 1 |
Smalls v. South Carolina Department of Educationgreen2 sentences2016Dep't of Educ., 339 S.C. 208, 219 , 528 S.E.2d 682, 688 (Ct. App. 2000) ("The trial court's jurisdiction to set off one judgment against another is equitable in nature and should be exercised when necessary to provide justice between the parties."); id. ("A set-off is not necessarily founded upon 'any statute or fixed rule of court, but grows out of the inherent equitable jurisdiction' of the court; therefore, such motions are 'addressed to the discretion of the court . . . .'" (quoting Rookard v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Ry., 89 S.C. 371, 376 , 71 S.E. 992, 995 (1911))). 3. 2016Dep't of Educ., 339 S.C. 208, 219 , 528 S.E.2d 682, 688 (Ct. App. 2000) ("The trial court's jurisdiction to set off one judgment against another is equitable in nature and should be exercised when necessary to provide justice between the parties."); id. ("A set-off is not necessarily founded upon 'any statute or fixed rule of court, but grows out of the inherent equitable jurisdiction' of the court; therefore, such motions are 'addressed to the discretion of the court . . . .'" (quoting Rookard v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Ry., 89 S.C. 371, 376 , 71 S.E. 992, 995 (1911))). 3. | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2016Servs. v. Mary C., 396 S.C. 15, 26 , 720 S.E.2d 503, 509 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding it is proper to defer to the family court even if conflicting evidence is presented on appeal as long as ample evidence in the record supports the family court’s findings and conclusions); Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 387-88 , 544 S.E.2d 620, 623 (2001) (holding the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating error in the family court’s findings of fact); Lewis, 392 S.C. at 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d at 654 (stating the appellate court generally defers to the factual findings of the family court regarding credibi 2016Servs. v. Mary C., 396 S.C. 15, 26 , 720 S.E.2d 503, 509 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding it is proper to defer to the family court even if conflicting evidence is presented on appeal as long as ample evidence in the record supports the family court’s findings and conclusions); Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 387-88 , 544 S.E.2d 620, 623 (2001) (holding the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating error in the family court’s findings of fact); Lewis, 392 S.C. at 388-89 , 709 S.E.2d at 654 (stating the appellate court generally defers to the factual findings of the family court regarding credibi | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Sandersgreen2 sentences2016As to Issues 2 and 3: Sanders v. Sanders, 396 S.C. 410, 419 , 722 S.E.2d 15, 19 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In general, marital property that is subject to equitable distribution is valued as of the date the marital litigation is filed or commenced."); Roof v. Steele, 413 S.C. 543, 549 , 776 S.E.2d 392, 395 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The family court is a court of equity and on appeals therefrom the appellate court reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); id. ("However, this broad standard of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the factual findings of the family court, and the appellant 2016As to Issues 2 and 3: Sanders v. Sanders, 396 S.C. 410, 419 , 722 S.E.2d 15, 19 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In general, marital property that is subject to equitable distribution is valued as of the date the marital litigation is filed or commenced."); Roof v. Steele, 413 S.C. 543, 549 , 776 S.E.2d 392, 395 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The family court is a court of equity and on appeals therefrom the appellate court reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); id. ("However, this broad standard of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the factual findings of the family court, and the appellant | 1 | 1 |
Rookard v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Ry.green2 sentences2016Dep't of Educ., 339 S.C. 208, 219 , 528 S.E.2d 682, 688 (Ct. App. 2000) ("The trial court's jurisdiction to set off one judgment against another is equitable in nature and should be exercised when necessary to provide justice between the parties."); id. ("A set-off is not necessarily founded upon 'any statute or fixed rule of court, but grows out of the inherent equitable jurisdiction' of the court; therefore, such motions are 'addressed to the discretion of the court . . . .'" (quoting Rookard v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Ry., 89 S.C. 371, 376 , 71 S.E. 992, 995 (1911))). 3. 2016Dep't of Educ., 339 S.C. 208, 219 , 528 S.E.2d 682, 688 (Ct. App. 2000) ("The trial court's jurisdiction to set off one judgment against another is equitable in nature and should be exercised when necessary to provide justice between the parties."); id. ("A set-off is not necessarily founded upon 'any statute or fixed rule of court, but grows out of the inherent equitable jurisdiction' of the court; therefore, such motions are 'addressed to the discretion of the court . . . .'" (quoting Rookard v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Ry., 89 S.C. 371, 376 , 71 S.E. 992, 995 (1911))). 3. | 1 | 1 |
Butler v. Butlergreen2 sentences2013Code Ann. § 20-3-130 (B)(1) (Supp. 2012) (stating periodic alimony is "terminable and modifiable based upon changed circumstances occurring in the future"); Butler v. Butler, 385 S.C. 328, 336 , 684 S.E.2d 191, 195 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The party seeking modification has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the unforeseen change has occurred." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); id. ("Changes in circumstances must be substantial or material to justify modification or termination of an alimony award."). 2013Code Ann. § 20-3-130 (B)(1) (Supp. 2012) (stating periodic alimony is "terminable and modifiable based upon changed circumstances occurring in the future"); Butler v. Butler, 385 S.C. 328, 336 , 684 S.E.2d 191, 195 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The party seeking modification has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the unforeseen change has occurred." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); id. ("Changes in circumstances must be substantial or material to justify modification or termination of an alimony award."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.