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.
14 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Landers v. Federal Deposit Insurancegreen2 sentences2016Id. at 494–95, 689 S.E.2d at 605 ; compare Landers, 402 S.C. at 100 , 739 S.E.2d at 209 (finding the slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims brought by a man who was fired significantly related to his employment contract that specified grounds and remedies for rightful and wrongful termination because the offensive comments related to the man's purported inability to do his job), with Partain, 386 S.C. at 488 , 689 S.E.2d at 602 (finding that a claim involving a "bait and switch" in relation to a used car purchase was outrageous and unforeseeable and thus was not subjec 2016Id. at 494–95, 689 S.E.2d at 605 ; compare Landers, 402 S.C. at 100 , 739 S.E.2d at 209 (finding the slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims brought by a man who was fired significantly related to his employment contract that specified grounds and remedies for rightful and wrongful termination because the offensive comments related to the man's purported inability to do his job), with Partain, 386 S.C. at 488 , 689 S.E.2d at 602 (finding that a claim involving a "bait and switch" in relation to a used car purchase was outrageous and unforeseeable and thus was not subjec | 2 | 2 |
Chassereau v. Global-Sun Pools, Inc.green2 sentences2016Id. at 494–95, 689 S.E.2d at 605 ; compare Landers, 402 S.C. at 100 , 739 S.E.2d at 209 (finding the slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims brought by a man who was fired significantly related to his employment contract that specified grounds and remedies for rightful and wrongful termination because the offensive comments related to the man's purported inability to do his job), with Partain, 386 S.C. at 488 , 689 S.E.2d at 602 (finding that a claim involving a "bait and switch" in relation to a used car purchase was outrageous and unforeseeable and thus was not subjec 2016Id. at 494–95, 689 S.E.2d at 605 ; compare Landers, 402 S.C. at 100 , 739 S.E.2d at 209 (finding the slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims brought by a man who was fired significantly related to his employment contract that specified grounds and remedies for rightful and wrongful termination because the offensive comments related to the man's purported inability to do his job), with Partain, 386 S.C. at 488 , 689 S.E.2d at 602 (finding that a claim involving a "bait and switch" in relation to a used car purchase was outrageous and unforeseeable and thus was not subjec | 2 | 2 |
Partain v. Upstate Automotive Groupgreen2 sentences2016Id. at 494–95, 689 S.E.2d at 605 ; compare Landers, 402 S.C. at 100 , 739 S.E.2d at 209 (finding the slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims brought by a man who was fired significantly related to his employment contract that specified grounds and remedies for rightful and wrongful termination because the offensive comments related to the man's purported inability to do his job), with Partain, 386 S.C. at 488 , 689 S.E.2d at 602 (finding that a claim involving a "bait and switch" in relation to a used car purchase was outrageous and unforeseeable and thus was not subjec 2016Id. at 494–95, 689 S.E.2d at 605 ; compare Landers, 402 S.C. at 100 , 739 S.E.2d at 209 (finding the slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims brought by a man who was fired significantly related to his employment contract that specified grounds and remedies for rightful and wrongful termination because the offensive comments related to the man's purported inability to do his job), with Partain, 386 S.C. at 488 , 689 S.E.2d at 602 (finding that a claim involving a "bait and switch" in relation to a used car purchase was outrageous and unforeseeable and thus was not subjec | 2 | 2 |
State v. Covingtongreen2 sentences2024Such proof is intermediate, more than a mere preponderance but less than is required for proof beyond a reasonable doubt; it does not mean clear and unequivocal."); Covington, 343 S.C. at 164 , 539 S.E.2d at 70 (finding that a clear and convincing standard need not be applied when juror concealment cannot first be proven under the lesser preponderance of the evidence standard); Groesbeck v. Marshall, 44 S.C. 538, 545 , 22 S.E. 743, 744-45 (1895) (finding to establish a defense under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a party must convince the trial court the grounds for its defense are 2024Such proof is intermediate, more than a mere preponderance but less than is required for proof beyond a reasonable doubt; it does not mean clear and unequivocal."); Covington, 343 S.C. at 164 , 539 S.E.2d at 70 (finding that a clear and convincing standard need not be applied when juror concealment cannot first be proven under the lesser preponderance of the evidence standard); Groesbeck v. Marshall, 44 S.C. 538, 545 , 22 S.E. 743, 744-45 (1895) (finding to establish a defense under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a party must convince the trial court the grounds for its defense are | 1 | 1 |
Groesbeck v. Marshallgreen2 sentences2024Such proof is intermediate, more than a mere preponderance but less than is required for proof beyond a reasonable doubt; it does not mean clear and unequivocal."); Covington, 343 S.C. at 164 , 539 S.E.2d at 70 (finding that a clear and convincing standard need not be applied when juror concealment cannot first be proven under the lesser preponderance of the evidence standard); Groesbeck v. Marshall, 44 S.C. 538, 545 , 22 S.E. 743, 744-45 (1895) (finding to establish a defense under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a party must convince the trial court the grounds for its defense are 2024Such proof is intermediate, more than a mere preponderance but less than is required for proof beyond a reasonable doubt; it does not mean clear and unequivocal."); Covington, 343 S.C. at 164 , 539 S.E.2d at 70 (finding that a clear and convincing standard need not be applied when juror concealment cannot first be proven under the lesser preponderance of the evidence standard); Groesbeck v. Marshall, 44 S.C. 538, 545 , 22 S.E. 743, 744-45 (1895) (finding to establish a defense under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a party must convince the trial court the grounds for its defense are | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kromahgreen2 sentences2022Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 329 , 730 S.E.2d 282, 285 (2012) (stating preservation is not a "'gotcha' game"); cf. State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340, 353 , 737 S.E.2d 490, 497 (2013) ("Although the full grounds for the exception were not articulated on the record at the time of the objection, as would have been advisable to avoid a question in this regard, it nevertheless appears from the transcript and the context of the proceedings that Kromah's reference to the parties' earlier discussion sufficiently apprised the trial court of the nature of the objection."). 2022Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 329 , 730 S.E.2d 282, 285 (2012) (stating preservation is not a "'gotcha' game"); cf. State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340, 353 , 737 S.E.2d 490, 497 (2013) ("Although the full grounds for the exception were not articulated on the record at the time of the objection, as would have been advisable to avoid a question in this regard, it nevertheless appears from the transcript and the context of the proceedings that Kromah's reference to the parties' earlier discussion sufficiently apprised the trial court of the nature of the objection."). | 1 | 1 |
Atlantic Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2022Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 329 , 730 S.E.2d 282, 285 (2012) (stating preservation is not a "'gotcha' game"); cf. State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340, 353 , 737 S.E.2d 490, 497 (2013) ("Although the full grounds for the exception were not articulated on the record at the time of the objection, as would have been advisable to avoid a question in this regard, it nevertheless appears from the transcript and the context of the proceedings that Kromah's reference to the parties' earlier discussion sufficiently apprised the trial court of the nature of the objection."). 2022Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 329 , 730 S.E.2d 282, 285 (2012) (stating preservation is not a "'gotcha' game"); cf. State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340, 353 , 737 S.E.2d 490, 497 (2013) ("Although the full grounds for the exception were not articulated on the record at the time of the objection, as would have been advisable to avoid a question in this regard, it nevertheless appears from the transcript and the context of the proceedings that Kromah's reference to the parties' earlier discussion sufficiently apprised the trial court of the nature of the objection."). | 1 | 1 |
Bogart v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences2005Bogart v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 273 S.C. 179, 180 , 255 S.E.2d 449, 450 (1979). 2005Bogart v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 273 S.C. 179, 180 , 255 S.E.2d 449, 450 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Burns v. Gowergreen2 sentences1993See Burns v. Gower, 34 S.C. 160 , 13 S.E. 331 (1891) (because Code S.C. § 358 (1882) requires appeals from a trial justice to the circuit court be heard on all the papers in the case, including testimony taken in writing on the trial “and the grounds of exception made,” the circuit court can only consider those questions raised by the exceptions); S.C. 1993See Burns v. Gower, 34 S.C. 160 , 13 S.E. 331 (1891) (because Code S.C. § 358 (1882) requires appeals from a trial justice to the circuit court be heard on all the papers in the case, including testimony taken in writing on the trial “and the grounds of exception made,” the circuit court can only consider those questions raised by the exceptions); S.C. | 1 | 1 |
Connolly v. People's Life Ins. Co. of SCgreen2 sentences1993Co. of S.C., 299 S.C. 348, 352 , 384 S.E. (2d) 738, 740 (1989) (an issue not raised “by [a] proper exception on appeal presentís] no question for appellate determination”). 1993Co. of S.C., 299 S.C. 348, 352 , 384 S.E. (2d) 738, 740 (1989) (an issue not raised “by [a] proper exception on appeal presentís] no question for appellate determination”). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coral Gables, Inc. v. Palmetto Brick Co.
green
2 sentences1952Coral Gables v. Palmetto Brick Co., 183 S. C. 478, 191 S. E. 337 ; Taylor v. Atlantic Coast Line R. 1951Coral Gables v. Palmetto Brick Co., 183 S. C. 478, 191 S. E. 337 ; Taylor v. Atlantic Coast Line R. | 2 | 1951–1952 |
Vernon v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1983Co., 218 S. C. 402, 63 S. E. (2d) 53 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
McCarty v. McCarty
red
1 sentence1982U. S....., 101 S. Ct. 2728 , 69 L. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1971Ed. (2d) 694 (1966), and Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 , 86 S. Ct. 1826 , 16 L. 1971Ed. (2d) 694 (1966), and Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 , 86 S. Ct. 1826 , 16 L. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1971Recognizing, as he must, that the Smith decision is a controlling precedent on the constitutional issue tendered by him, the appellant has petitioned that it be modified or overruled “on the grounds that the rule set forth in said case has been modified or overruled by more recent decisions of The United States Supreme Court.” Appellant cites Miranda v. Arisona, 384 U. S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. 1971Recognizing, as he must, that the Smith decision is a controlling precedent on the constitutional issue tendered by him, the appellant has petitioned that it be modified or overruled “on the grounds that the rule set forth in said case has been modified or overruled by more recent decisions of The United States Supreme Court.” Appellant cites Miranda v. Arisona, 384 U. S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Levin v. Levin
green
1 sentence1964It appears from the Wise case the Court considered condonation as an absolute forgiveness as it was stated that if “the plaintiff is entitled to her claim of alimony, the grounds of such claim must be sought for in the conduct of the husband after such reconciliation took place.” However, in Levin v. Levin, 68 S. C. 123, 46 S. E. 945 , the Court said: “* * * It is quite clear that a decree for alimony cannot be based upon wrongs which have been condoned, all misconduct having ceased after such condonation. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Knobelock v. Germania Savings Bank
neutral
2 sentences1925And as Brown, the president and director of the Bank, was the agent of the Bank in making this loan, his knowledge with respect to the commissions is imputable to the plaintiff Bank." *Page 198 The only case from South Carolina upon which his Honor, the Circuit Judge, based his conclusion, was Knobelock v. Bank , 50 S.C. 259 ; 27 S.E., 962 . 1925And as Brown, the president and director of the Bank, was the agent of the Bank in making this loan, his knowledge with respect to the commissions is imputable to the plaintiff Bank." *Page 198 The only case from South Carolina upon which his Honor, the Circuit Judge, based his conclusion, was Knobelock v. Bank , 50 S.C. 259 ; 27 S.E., 962 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Parry v. Southeastern Life Insurance
neutral
1 sentence1924We agree with the Circuit Judge in his holding: “I do not think that there is any evidence to go to the jury on the question of waiver.” The grounds of waiver urged by the respondent are: (1) The extensions, indulgences, granted by the company to the insured; (2) the failure of the company to return to the insured the premium note of $32.85. *15 As to the first ground: It is only necessary to cite the case of Parry v. Insurance Co., 95 S. C., 1; 78 S. E., 441 , to show that this ground cannot be sustained. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.