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 2005–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Byrd v. City of Hartsvillegreen2 sentences2025We previously held there are four elements of an inverse condemnation claim: "(1) affirmative conduct of a government entity; (2) the conduct effects a taking; (3) the taking is for public use; and (4) the taking has some degree of permanence." Id. at 657 , 620 S.E.2d at 79 . 2025We previously held there are four elements of an inverse condemnation claim: "(1) affirmative conduct of a government entity; (2) the conduct effects a taking; (3) the taking is for public use; and (4) the taking has some degree of permanence." Id. at 657 , 620 S.E.2d at 79 . | 3 | 4 |
Hawkins v. City of Greenvillegreen2 sentences2016See Roddey v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 415 S.C. 580, 589 , 784 S.E.2d 670, 675 (2016) ("To prove a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached that duty by a negligent act or omission; (3) the defendant's breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an injury or damages."); Hawkins, 358 S.C. at 290 , 594 S.E.2d at 562 (recognizing "an affirmative, positive, aggressive act on the part of the governmental agency" is an element of an inverse condemnat 2016See Roddey v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 415 S.C. 580, 589 , 784 S.E.2d 670, 675 (2016) ("To prove a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached that duty by a negligent act or omission; (3) the defendant's breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an injury or damages."); Hawkins, 358 S.C. at 290 , 594 S.E.2d at 562 (recognizing "an affirmative, positive, aggressive act on the part of the governmental agency" is an element of an inverse condemnat | 3 | 3 |
Kiriakides v. SCH. DIST. OF GREENVILLEgreen2 sentences2009As to the inverse condemnation claim, McPeake failed to present any evidence of diminution in value of the property as a result of the alleged taking and we affirm the grant of summary judgment pursuant to Rules 220(b)-(c),[3] SCACR, and the following authorities: Kiriakides v. School Dist. of Greenville County , 382 S.C. 8, 14 , 675 S.E.2d 439, 442 (2009) ("A landowner has the burden of proving damages for the taking of the landowner's property, whether through condemnation proceedings or by inverse condemnation."); WRB Ltd. 2009As to the inverse condemnation claim, McPeake failed to present any evidence of diminution in value of the property as a result of the alleged taking and we affirm the grant of summary judgment pursuant to Rules 220(b)-(c),[3] SCACR, and the following authorities: Kiriakides v. School Dist. of Greenville County , 382 S.C. 8, 14 , 675 S.E.2d 439, 442 (2009) ("A landowner has the burden of proving damages for the taking of the landowner's property, whether through condemnation proceedings or by inverse condemnation."); WRB Ltd. | 1 | 2 |
Roddey v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LPgreen2 sentences2016See Roddey v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 415 S.C. 580, 589 , 784 S.E.2d 670, 675 (2016) ("To prove a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached that duty by a negligent act or omission; (3) the defendant's breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an injury or damages."); Hawkins, 358 S.C. at 290 , 594 S.E.2d at 562 (recognizing "an affirmative, positive, aggressive act on the part of the governmental agency" is an element of an inverse condemnat 2016See Roddey v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 415 S.C. 580, 589 , 784 S.E.2d 670, 675 (2016) ("To prove a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached that duty by a negligent act or omission; (3) the defendant's breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an injury or damages."); Hawkins, 358 S.C. at 290 , 594 S.E.2d at 562 (recognizing "an affirmative, positive, aggressive act on the part of the governmental agency" is an element of an inverse condemnat | 1 | 1 |
Hilton Head Automotive, LLC v. South Carolina Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2013Dep’t of Transp., 394 S.C. 27, 30 , 714 S.E.2d 308, 310 (2011). 2013Dep’t of Transp., 394 S.C. 27, 30 , 714 S.E.2d 308, 310 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
Hardin v. South Carolina Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2011In this case, HHA has alleged that the Department physically appropriated private property by materially injuring an easement appurtenant thereto. 2 Following Hardin , a proper analysis of an inverse condemnation claim premised on an alleged physical taking must begin with a determination of the scope of the property rights at issue. 371 S.C. at 605, 609 , 641 S.E.2d at 441, 443 (explaining that a court evaluating an inverse condemnation claim premised on a physical taking should “focus ... on a landowner’s actual property interests; that is, his easements”). 2011In this case, HHA has alleged that the Department physically appropriated private property by materially injuring an easement appurtenant thereto. 2 Following Hardin , a proper analysis of an inverse condemnation claim premised on an alleged physical taking must begin with a determination of the scope of the property rights at issue. 371 S.C. at 605, 609 , 641 S.E.2d at 441, 443 (explaining that a court evaluating an inverse condemnation claim premised on a physical taking should “focus ... on a landowner’s actual property interests; that is, his easements”). | 1 | 1 |
WRB Ltd. Partnership v. County of Lexingtongreen2 sentences2009P'ship v. County of Lexington , 369 S.C. 30, 32 , 630 S.E.2d 479, 481 (2006) (in order to prevail in an inverse condemnation action, the plaintiff must prove an affirmative, aggressive, and positive act by the government, causing the alleged damage to the plaintiff's property); Raven v. Greenville County , 315 S.C. 447, 465 , 434 S.E.2d 296, 307 (Ct. App. 1993) (stating the measure of damages for injury to real property, whether by nuisance, trespass, negligence, or inverse condemnation is the diminution in the market value of the property). 2. 2009P'ship v. County of Lexington , 369 S.C. 30, 32 , 630 S.E.2d 479, 481 (2006) (in order to prevail in an inverse condemnation action, the plaintiff must prove an affirmative, aggressive, and positive act by the government, causing the alleged damage to the plaintiff's property); Raven v. Greenville County , 315 S.C. 447, 465 , 434 S.E.2d 296, 307 (Ct. App. 1993) (stating the measure of damages for injury to real property, whether by nuisance, trespass, negligence, or inverse condemnation is the diminution in the market value of the property). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Felts v. Richland Countygreen2 sentences2009“A suit for declaratory judgment is neither legal nor equitable, but is determined by the nature of the underlying-issue.” Felts v. Richland County, 303 S.C. 354, 356 , 400 S.E.2d 781, 782 (1991). 2009“A suit for declaratory judgment is neither legal nor equitable, but is determined by the nature of the underlying-issue.” Felts v. Richland County, 303 S.C. 354, 356 , 400 S.E.2d 781, 782 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Ravan v. Greenville Countygreen2 sentences2009P'ship v. County of Lexington , 369 S.C. 30, 32 , 630 S.E.2d 479, 481 (2006) (in order to prevail in an inverse condemnation action, the plaintiff must prove an affirmative, aggressive, and positive act by the government, causing the alleged damage to the plaintiff's property); Raven v. Greenville County , 315 S.C. 447, 465 , 434 S.E.2d 296, 307 (Ct. App. 1993) (stating the measure of damages for injury to real property, whether by nuisance, trespass, negligence, or inverse condemnation is the diminution in the market value of the property). 2. 2009P'ship v. County of Lexington , 369 S.C. 30, 32 , 630 S.E.2d 479, 481 (2006) (in order to prevail in an inverse condemnation action, the plaintiff must prove an affirmative, aggressive, and positive act by the government, causing the alleged damage to the plaintiff's property); Raven v. Greenville County , 315 S.C. 447, 465 , 434 S.E.2d 296, 307 (Ct. App. 1993) (stating the measure of damages for injury to real property, whether by nuisance, trespass, negligence, or inverse condemnation is the diminution in the market value of the property). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Osborne Ex Rel. Osborne v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2005Osborne v. Adams, 346 S.C. 4, 7 , 550 S.E.2d 319, 321 (2001). 2005Osborne v. Adams, 346 S.C. 4, 7 , 550 S.E.2d 319, 321 (2001). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Aside from cases involving a Lucas-type categorical taking, “regulatory takings challenges are governed by the standards set forth in Penn Central.” Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 539 , 125 S.Ct. 2074 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (2005); see also Byrd v. City of Hartsville, 365 S.C. 650, 658 , 620 S.E.2d 76, 80 (2005) (finding that an inverse condemnation claim involving denial of less than all economically viable use is governed by Penn Central). 2015Aside from cases involving a Lucas-type categorical taking, “regulatory takings challenges are governed by the standards set forth in Penn Central.” Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 539 , 125 S.Ct. 2074 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (2005); see also Byrd v. City of Hartsville, 365 S.C. 650, 658 , 620 S.E.2d 76, 80 (2005) (finding that an inverse condemnation claim involving denial of less than all economically viable use is governed by Penn Central). | 2 | 2013–2015 |
Carolina Convenience Stores, Inc. v. City of Spartanburg
green
2 sentences2016Carolina Convenience Stores, Inc. v. City of Spartanburg, 398 S.C. 27 , 727 S.E.2d 28 (Ct. App. 2012). 2016Carolina Convenience Stores, Inc. v. City of Spartanburg, 398 S.C. 27 , 727 S.E.2d 28 (Ct. App. 2012). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Carolina Chloride, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2016Carolina Chloride, 391 S.C. at 435 , 706 S.E.2d at 504 . 2016Carolina Chloride, 391 S.C. at 435 , 706 S.E.2d at 504 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Shaw v. City of St. Louis
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 574 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Richland County v. Carolina Chloride, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011Carolina Chloride, 382 S.C. at 654 , 677 S.E.2d at 903 . 2011Carolina Chloride, 382 S.C. at 654 , 677 S.E.2d at 903 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.