light rule in South Carolina

1965Pee Dee Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 229 S. C. 155, 92 S. E. (2d) 171 ; Beard-Laney, Inc. v. Darby, 213 S. C. 380, 49 S. E. (2d) 564 ; State ex rel.

1965Pee Dee Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Public Service Commission , 229 S.C. 155 , 92 S.E. (2d) 171 ; BeardLaney, Inc. v. Darby , 213 S.C. 380 , 49 S.E. (2d) 564 ; State ex rel.

1965Pee Dee Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 229 S. C. 155, 92 S. E. (2d) 171 ; Beard-Laney, Inc. v. Darby, 213 S. C. 380, 49 S. E. (2d) 564 ; State ex rel.

1965Pee Dee Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Public Service Commission , 229 S.C. 155 , 92 S.E. (2d) 171 ; BeardLaney, Inc. v. Darby , 213 S.C. 380 , 49 S.E. (2d) 564 ; State ex rel.

1967Thompson v. Southern Ry., 208 S.C. 49 , 37 S. E. (2d) 278 ; Langston v. Atlantic Coast Line R.

1967Thompson v. Southern Ry., 208 S.C. 49 , 37 S. E. (2d) 278 ; Langston v. Atlantic Coast Line R.

1975Powell v. Powell, 256 S. C. 111, 181 S. E. (2d) 13 .

1974We must view the evidence in the light of the rule set forth in the cases of Brown v. Brown , 215 S.C. 502 , 50 S.E. (2d) 330 , 15 A.L.R. (2d) 163; *295 Barstow v. Barstow , 223 S.C. 136 , 74 S.E. (2d) 541 ; and Brown v. Brown , 250 S.C. 114 , 156 S.E. (2d) 641 .

1974We must view the evidence in the light of the rule set forth in the cases of Brown v. Brown , 215 S.C. 502 , 50 S.E. (2d) 330 , 15 A.L.R. (2d) 163; *295 Barstow v. Barstow , 223 S.C. 136 , 74 S.E. (2d) 541 ; and Brown v. Brown , 250 S.C. 114 , 156 S.E. (2d) 641 .

1974We must view the evidence in the light of the rule set forth in the cases of Brown v. Brown, 215 S. C. 502, 50 S. E. (2d) 330 , 15 A. L.

1974We must view the evidence in the light of the rule set forth in the cases of Brown v. Brown , 215 S.C. 502 , 50 S.E. (2d) 330 , 15 A.L.R. (2d) 163; *295 Barstow v. Barstow , 223 S.C. 136 , 74 S.E. (2d) 541 ; and Brown v. Brown , 250 S.C. 114 , 156 S.E. (2d) 641 .

1974We must view the evidence in the light of the rule set forth in the cases of Brown v. Brown , 215 S.C. 502 , 50 S.E. (2d) 330 , 15 A.L.R. (2d) 163; *295 Barstow v. Barstow , 223 S.C. 136 , 74 S.E. (2d) 541 ; and Brown v. Brown , 250 S.C. 114 , 156 S.E. (2d) 641 .

1974We must view the evidence in the light of the rule set forth in the cases of Brown v. Brown , 215 S.C. 502 , 50 S.E. (2d) 330 , 15 A.L.R. (2d) 163; *295 Barstow v. Barstow , 223 S.C. 136 , 74 S.E. (2d) 541 ; and Brown v. Brown , 250 S.C. 114 , 156 S.E. (2d) 641 .

1974We must view the evidence in the light of the rule set forth in the cases of Brown v. Brown , 215 S.C. 502 , 50 S.E. (2d) 330 , 15 A.L.R. (2d) 163; *295 Barstow v. Barstow , 223 S.C. 136 , 74 S.E. (2d) 541 ; and Brown v. Brown , 250 S.C. 114 , 156 S.E. (2d) 641 .

1973Black v. Gettys, 238 S. C. 167, 119 S. E. (2d) 660 .

1971The appellant relies on the cases of State v. Belton, 24 S. C. 185 and State v. Abercrombie, 130 S. C. 358, 126 S. E. 142 as authority for the rule that atheists and agnostics are not competent witnesses.

1969A parallel exists between this case and the decisions of Parker v. Stevenson Oil Company , 245 S.C. 275 , 140 S.E. (2d) 177 , and the Indiana case cited therein of Silvestro v. Walz , 222 Ind. 163 , 51 N.E. (2d) 629, particularly in the light of the defense testimony.

1969A parallel exists between this case and the decisions of Parker v. Stevenson Oil Company, 245 S. C. 275, 140 S. E. (2d) 177 , and the Indiana case cited therein of Silvestro v. Walz, 222 Ind. 163 , 51 N. E. (2d) 629, particularly in the light of the defense testimony.

1969A parallel exists between this case and the decisions of Parker v. Stevenson Oil Company , 245 S.C. 275 , 140 S.E. (2d) 177 , and the Indiana case cited therein of Silvestro v. Walz , 222 Ind. 163 , 51 N.E. (2d) 629, particularly in the light of the defense testimony.

1969A parallel exists between this case and the decisions of Parker v. Stevenson Oil Company , 245 S.C. 275 , 140 S.E. (2d) 177 , and the Indiana case cited therein of Silvestro v. Walz , 222 Ind. 163 , 51 N.E. (2d) 629, particularly in the light of the defense testimony.

1968Forester v. Forester, 226 S. C. 311, 85 S. E. (2d) 187 .

1968We review the evidence in the light of the rule of this court that: “The ordinary rule of preponderance or greater weight of the evidence, applicable to civil actions generally is insufficient in this class of cases; some Courts require proof beyo.nd a reasonable doubt, as on the criminal side; universally a higher degree of conviction of truth is necessary than in the usual civil case.” Young v. Levy, 206 S. C. 1, 32 S. E. (2d) 889 .

1966Cooper River Bridge, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, supra, was an action by the corporation to recover additional taxes assessed against it as a public service corporation within the meaning of the same statute involved in the present action.

1946Co. et al., 196 S. C., 259, 13 S. E. (2d), 137 , citing Ford v. Id., supra. *53 In both the Harrison and the Cook cases we pointed out that a traveler approaching a railroad crossing has a right to presume that the defendants will obey the law and give the statutory signals upon approaching the crossing; that while the wrongful conduct of the defendant in this regard will not excuse the traveler from the exercise of slight care, yet in determining whether he did use such care, his conduct is to be judged in the light of such presumption.” Langston v. A. C.

1946Co. et al., 196 S. C., 259, 13 S. E. (2d), 137 , citing Ford v. Id., supra. *53 In both the Harrison and the Cook cases we pointed out that a traveler approaching a railroad crossing has a right to presume that the defendants will obey the law and give the statutory signals upon approaching the crossing; that while the wrongful conduct of the defendant in this regard will not excuse the traveler from the exercise of slight care, yet in determining whether he did use such care, his conduct is to be judged in the light of such presumption.” Langston v. A. C.

1940Damage resulting to one from the defense by his neighbor from surface waters under the “common enemy” rule of the common law, assertedly of force in this State, is referred to as damnum absque injuria which may be translated “damage without legal remedy,” but under our quoted decisions the common law affords a remedy against the State for one whose proprety is damaged or taken for public use within the terms of the Constitution. ' Moreover this case is ruled by Faust v. Richland County, supra, when the latter is considered in the light of the analysis of the facts really alleged in the complai