14 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1932–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lyles v. BMI, Inc.green2 sentences2018A claim of estoppel includes elements for the party asserting estoppel and the party estopped.") (citation omitted); id. (stating the elements of estoppel as to the estopped party are: "a misrepresentation or nondisclosure, intent to induce the other party to act, and actual or constructive knowledge of the true facts," and the elements to the party claiming estoppel are: "lack of knowledge, or means of acquiring knowledge of the true facts, reasonable reliance, and prejudicial change of position"); see also King v. James, 388 S.C. 16, 30 , 694 S.E.2d 35, 42 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A waiver is a vol 2018A claim of estoppel includes elements for the party asserting estoppel and the party estopped.") (citation omitted); id. (stating the elements of estoppel as to the estopped party are: "a misrepresentation or nondisclosure, intent to induce the other party to act, and actual or constructive knowledge of the true facts," and the elements to the party claiming estoppel are: "lack of knowledge, or means of acquiring knowledge of the true facts, reasonable reliance, and prejudicial change of position"); see also King v. James, 388 S.C. 16, 30 , 694 S.E.2d 35, 42 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A waiver is a vol | 3 | 3 |
Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc.green2 sentences2020See id. at 336, 338 , 803 S.E.2d at 296, 297 . 2020See id. at 336, 338 , 803 S.E.2d at 296, 297 . | 2 | 2 |
King v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2018A claim of estoppel includes elements for the party asserting estoppel and the party estopped.") (citation omitted); id. (stating the elements of estoppel as to the estopped party are: "a misrepresentation or nondisclosure, intent to induce the other party to act, and actual or constructive knowledge of the true facts," and the elements to the party claiming estoppel are: "lack of knowledge, or means of acquiring knowledge of the true facts, reasonable reliance, and prejudicial change of position"); see also King v. James, 388 S.C. 16, 30 , 694 S.E.2d 35, 42 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A waiver is a vol 2018A claim of estoppel includes elements for the party asserting estoppel and the party estopped.") (citation omitted); id. (stating the elements of estoppel as to the estopped party are: "a misrepresentation or nondisclosure, intent to induce the other party to act, and actual or constructive knowledge of the true facts," and the elements to the party claiming estoppel are: "lack of knowledge, or means of acquiring knowledge of the true facts, reasonable reliance, and prejudicial change of position"); see also King v. James, 388 S.C. 16, 30 , 694 S.E.2d 35, 42 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A waiver is a vol | 2 | 2 |
Howell v. Pacific Columbia Millsgreen2 sentences1998See Howell v. Pacific Columbia Mills, 291 S.C. 469, 473 , 354 S.E.2d 384, 386 (1987) (“There would be nothing to prevent [appellant’s] line of reasoning from being extended to mean that since all employees must leave home in order to come to work, coming to work is an implied requirement of their employment. 1998See Howell v. Pacific Columbia Mills, 291 S.C. 469, 473 , 354 S.E.2d 384, 386 (1987) (“There would be nothing to prevent [appellant’s] line of reasoning from being extended to mean that since all employees must leave home in order to come to work, coming to work is an implied requirement of their employment. | 2 | 2 |
Zeller v. Cumberland Truck Salesgreen2 sentences2011State Ethics Comm'n , 385 S.C. 483, 496-97 , 685 S.E.2d 600, 607 (2009) ("Waiver requires a party to have known of a right and known that right was being abandoned."); Zeller v. Cumberland Truck Sales , 272 S.C. 558, 562 , 253 S.E.2d 111, 113 (1979) ("[W]here an implied waiver is claimed, caution must be exercised, for waiver will not be implied from doubtful acts."); King v. James , 388 S.C. 16, 30 , 694 S.E.2d 35, 42 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In order for a party to waive a right, the party must have known of the right and known that the right was being abandoned . . . . 2011State Ethics Comm'n , 385 S.C. 483, 496-97 , 685 S.E.2d 600, 607 (2009) ("Waiver requires a party to have known of a right and known that right was being abandoned."); Zeller v. Cumberland Truck Sales , 272 S.C. 558, 562 , 253 S.E.2d 111, 113 (1979) ("[W]here an implied waiver is claimed, caution must be exercised, for waiver will not be implied from doubtful acts."); King v. James , 388 S.C. 16, 30 , 694 S.E.2d 35, 42 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In order for a party to waive a right, the party must have known of the right and known that the right was being abandoned . . . . | 1 | 2 |
Sanford v. South Carolina State Ethics Commissiongreen2 sentences2011State Ethics Comm'n , 385 S.C. 483, 496-97 , 685 S.E.2d 600, 607 (2009) ("Waiver requires a party to have known of a right and known that right was being abandoned."); Zeller v. Cumberland Truck Sales , 272 S.C. 558, 562 , 253 S.E.2d 111, 113 (1979) ("[W]here an implied waiver is claimed, caution must be exercised, for waiver will not be implied from doubtful acts."); King v. James , 388 S.C. 16, 30 , 694 S.E.2d 35, 42 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In order for a party to waive a right, the party must have known of the right and known that the right was being abandoned . . . . 2011State Ethics Comm'n , 385 S.C. 483, 496-97 , 685 S.E.2d 600, 607 (2009) ("Waiver requires a party to have known of a right and known that right was being abandoned."); Zeller v. Cumberland Truck Sales , 272 S.C. 558, 562 , 253 S.E.2d 111, 113 (1979) ("[W]here an implied waiver is claimed, caution must be exercised, for waiver will not be implied from doubtful acts."); King v. James , 388 S.C. 16, 30 , 694 S.E.2d 35, 42 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In order for a party to waive a right, the party must have known of the right and known that the right was being abandoned . . . . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Janasik v. Fairway Oaks Villas Horizontal Property Regime
green
2 sentences2019"Where an implied waiver is involved, the distinction between waiver and estoppel is close, and sometimes the doctrines merge into each other with almost imperceptible gradations, so that it is difficult to determine the exact point where one doctrine ends and the other begins." Janasik , 307 S.C. at 344 , 415 S.E.2d at 388 (quoting 28 Am. 2019"Where an implied waiver is involved, the distinction between waiver and estoppel is close, and sometimes the doctrines merge into each other with almost imperceptible gradations, so that it is difficult to determine the exact point where one doctrine ends and the other begins." Janasik , 307 S.C. at 344 , 415 S.E.2d at 388 (quoting 28 Am. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Queen's Grant II Horizontal Property Regime v. Greenwood Development Corp.
green
1 sentence2018A claim of estoppel includes elements for the party asserting estoppel and the party estopped.") (citation omitted); id. (stating the elements of estoppel as to the estopped party are: "a misrepresentation or nondisclosure, intent to induce the other party to act, and actual or constructive knowledge of the true facts," and the elements to the party claiming estoppel are: "lack of knowledge, or means of acquiring knowledge of the true facts, reasonable reliance, and prejudicial change of position"); see also King v. James, 388 S.C. 16, 30 , 694 S.E.2d 35, 42 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A waiver is a vol | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hearn v. Rhay
green
2 sentences2014Hearn summarized the factors common to the exceptions to the rule of privilege as (1) assertion of the privilege was a result of some affirmative act, such as filing suit, by the asserting party; (2) through this affirmative act, the asserting party put the protected information at issue by making it relevant to the case; and (3) application of the privilege would have denied the opposing party access to information vital to his defense. 68 F.R.D. at 581 . 2014Hearn summarized the factors common to the exceptions to the rule of privilege as (1) assertion of the privilege was a result of some affirmative act, such as filing suit, by the asserting party; (2) through this affirmative act, the asserting party put the protected information at issue by making it relevant to the case; and (3) application of the privilege would have denied the opposing party access to information vital to his defense. 68 F.R.D. at 581 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Pitts v. New York Life Insurance
green
1 sentence1987Pitts v. New York Life Insurance Company, 247 S. C. 545, 148 S. E. (2d) 369 (1966). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Leaphart v. Selby
green
1 sentence1956In Leaphart v. Selby, 135 S. C. 1, 133 S. E. 451 , although, as here, the mortgagee kept in his possession continuously all of the numerous bonds and mortgages in which he had invested through a firm of attorneys, the lower court, affirming the Master’s report, held that the general course of dealing between the mortgagee and that firm in relation to loans to the respondent and other borrowers, indicated a general agency of the firm to handle such mortgage loans, including authority to collect principal and interest. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Stribling v. Fretwell
green
1 sentence1932J., 210. “ ‘Laches’ connotes undue lapse of time, negligence, and opportunity to have acted sooner; all three factors being *280 necessary before bar in equity is complete.” Syllabus, Stribling v. Fretwell, 157 S. C., 297, 154 S. E., 415, 416 . | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.