14 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berry v. McLeodgreen2 sentences2013Co., 357 S.C. 386, 395 , 593 S.E.2d 183, 187 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The date on which discovery of the cause of action should have been made is an objective, rather than a subjective, question."); id. ("In other words, whether the particular plaintiff actually knew he had a claim is not the test."); id. ("Rather, courts must decide whether the circumstances of the case would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some right of his has been invaded, or that some claim against another party might exist."); Berry v. McLeod, 328 S.C. 435, 445 , 492 S.E.2d 794 , 799 (Ct. App. 199 2013Co., 357 S.C. 386, 395 , 593 S.E.2d 183, 187 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The date on which discovery of the cause of action should have been made is an objective, rather than a subjective, question."); id. ("In other words, whether the particular plaintiff actually knew he had a claim is not the test."); id. ("Rather, courts must decide whether the circumstances of the case would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some right of his has been invaded, or that some claim against another party might exist."); Berry v. McLeod, 328 S.C. 435, 445 , 492 S.E.2d 794 , 799 (Ct. App. 199 | 3 | 3 |
Tierce v. Gilliamgreen2 sentences1997See In re Horton’s Estate, 5 N.J.Super. 518 , 68 A.2d 658, 658 (Ch.Div.1949), (the Superior Court of New Jersey construed a will leaving the residue of the testator’s property to “such of my nieces and nephews that shall survive me” as including grandnieces and grandnephews because extrinsic evidence showed testator did not draw a distinction between nieces and nephews and grandnieces and grandnephews; therefore her true intent was to include them as residuary beneficiaries.) See also 9 Wigmore, Evidence § 2458 (Chadbourn rev. 1981) (drawing a distinction between the standard for construction 1997Div.1949), (the Superior Court of New Jersey construed a will leaving the residue of the testator's property to "such of my nieces and nephews that shall survive me" as including grandnieces and grandnephews because extrinsic evidence showed testator did not draw a distinction between nieces and nephews and grandnieces and grandnephews; therefore her true intent was to include them as residuary beneficiaries.) See also 9 Wigmore, Evidence § 2458 (Chadbourn rev. 1981) (drawing a distinction between the standard for construction of contracts, that is, the "mutual standard of parties to a bilater | 2 | 2 |
Humphries v. District of Columbiagreen1 sentence2026See Humphries v. District of Columbia, 174 U.S. 190, 194 (1899) ("That, generally, the right to poll a jury exists, may be conceded. | 1 | 1 |
Cleland v. Westvaco Corp.green2 sentences2024See Cleland v. Westvaco Corp., 314 S.C. 508, 511 , 431 S.E.2d 264 , 266–67 (Ct. App. 1993) (noting an unsuccessful argument for public rights did not necessarily defeat an individual claim for an easement); see also Nelums v. Cousins, 304 S.C. 306, 308 , 403 S.E.2d 681, 682 (1991) (finding a plaintiff's prescriptive easement claim was asserted independent of use by others). 2024See Cleland v. Westvaco Corp., 314 S.C. 508, 511 , 431 S.E.2d 264 , 266–67 (Ct. App. 1993) (noting an unsuccessful argument for public rights did not necessarily defeat an individual claim for an easement); see also Nelums v. Cousins, 304 S.C. 306, 308 , 403 S.E.2d 681, 682 (1991) (finding a plaintiff's prescriptive easement claim was asserted independent of use by others). | 1 | 1 |
Nelums v. Cousinsgreen2 sentences2024See Cleland v. Westvaco Corp., 314 S.C. 508, 511 , 431 S.E.2d 264 , 266–67 (Ct. App. 1993) (noting an unsuccessful argument for public rights did not necessarily defeat an individual claim for an easement); see also Nelums v. Cousins, 304 S.C. 306, 308 , 403 S.E.2d 681, 682 (1991) (finding a plaintiff's prescriptive easement claim was asserted independent of use by others). 2024See Cleland v. Westvaco Corp., 314 S.C. 508, 511 , 431 S.E.2d 264 , 266–67 (Ct. App. 1993) (noting an unsuccessful argument for public rights did not necessarily defeat an individual claim for an easement); see also Nelums v. Cousins, 304 S.C. 306, 308 , 403 S.E.2d 681, 682 (1991) (finding a plaintiff's prescriptive easement claim was asserted independent of use by others). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Aaron Grahamgreen1 sentence2017Id. at 319 (citing United States v. Carpenter , 819 F.3d 880 , 886 (6th Cir. 2016) ); see also **175 United States v. Graham , 824 F.3d 421 , 427 (4th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (addressing historical cell-site location information and holding an individual can claim "no legitimate expectation of privacy" in information he voluntarily provided to a third party). | 1 | 1 |
Rumpf v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2013Co., 357 S.C. 386, 395 , 593 S.E.2d 183, 187 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The date on which discovery of the cause of action should have been made is an objective, rather than a subjective, question."); id. ("In other words, whether the particular plaintiff actually knew he had a claim is not the test."); id. ("Rather, courts must decide whether the circumstances of the case would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some right of his has been invaded, or that some claim against another party might exist."); Berry v. McLeod, 328 S.C. 435, 445 , 492 S.E.2d 794 , 799 (Ct. App. 199 2013Co., 357 S.C. 386, 395 , 593 S.E.2d 183, 187 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The date on which discovery of the cause of action should have been made is an objective, rather than a subjective, question."); id. ("In other words, whether the particular plaintiff actually knew he had a claim is not the test."); id. ("Rather, courts must decide whether the circumstances of the case would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some right of his has been invaded, or that some claim against another party might exist."); Berry v. McLeod, 328 S.C. 435, 445 , 492 S.E.2d 794 , 799 (Ct. App. 199 | 1 | 1 |
Huntley v. Younggreen2 sentences2013As to Issues (3), (4), and (5), concerning whether the master erred in finding the circuit court's previous rulings were not binding: Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 560 , 462 S.E.2d 860, 861 (1995) ("The denial of a Rule 12(b)(6)[, SCRCP,] motion does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case."); id. ("Since the order denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not finally decide any issue, it is not directly appealable."); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 198 , 659 S.E.2d 196, 203 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The purpose of 2013As to Issues (3), (4), and (5), concerning whether the master erred in finding the circuit court's previous rulings were not binding: Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 560 , 462 S.E.2d 860, 861 (1995) ("The denial of a Rule 12(b)(6)[, SCRCP,] motion does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case."); id. ("Since the order denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not finally decide any issue, it is not directly appealable."); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 198 , 659 S.E.2d 196, 203 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The purpose of | 1 | 1 |
Dawkins v. Fieldsgreen2 sentences2013As to Issues (3), (4), and (5), concerning whether the master erred in finding the circuit court's previous rulings were not binding: Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 560 , 462 S.E.2d 860, 861 (1995) ("The denial of a Rule 12(b)(6)[, SCRCP,] motion does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case."); id. ("Since the order denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not finally decide any issue, it is not directly appealable."); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 198 , 659 S.E.2d 196, 203 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The purpose of 2013As to Issues (3), (4), and (5), concerning whether the master erred in finding the circuit court's previous rulings were not binding: Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 560 , 462 S.E.2d 860, 861 (1995) ("The denial of a Rule 12(b)(6)[, SCRCP,] motion does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case."); id. ("Since the order denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not finally decide any issue, it is not directly appealable."); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 198 , 659 S.E.2d 196, 203 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The purpose of | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Breedlovegreen2 sentences2013As to Issues (3), (4), and (5), concerning whether the master erred in finding the circuit court's previous rulings were not binding: Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 560 , 462 S.E.2d 860, 861 (1995) ("The denial of a Rule 12(b)(6)[, SCRCP,] motion does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case."); id. ("Since the order denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not finally decide any issue, it is not directly appealable."); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 198 , 659 S.E.2d 196, 203 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The purpose of 2013As to Issues (3), (4), and (5), concerning whether the master erred in finding the circuit court's previous rulings were not binding: Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 560 , 462 S.E.2d 860, 861 (1995) ("The denial of a Rule 12(b)(6)[, SCRCP,] motion does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case."); id. ("Since the order denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not finally decide any issue, it is not directly appealable."); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 198 , 659 S.E.2d 196, 203 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The purpose of | 1 | 1 |
Lynch v. TOYS\ R\" US-DELAWAREgreen1 sentence2013As to Issues (3), (4), and (5), concerning whether the master erred in finding the circuit court's previous rulings were not binding: Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 560 , 462 S.E.2d 860, 861 (1995) ("The denial of a Rule 12(b)(6)[, SCRCP,] motion does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case."); id. ("Since the order denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not finally decide any issue, it is not directly appealable."); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 198 , 659 S.E.2d 196, 203 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The purpose of | 1 | 1 |
Brazell v. Windsorgreen1 sentence2013As to Issues (3), (4), and (5), concerning whether the master erred in finding the circuit court's previous rulings were not binding: Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 560 , 462 S.E.2d 860, 861 (1995) ("The denial of a Rule 12(b)(6)[, SCRCP,] motion does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case."); id. ("Since the order denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not finally decide any issue, it is not directly appealable."); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 198 , 659 S.E.2d 196, 203 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The purpose of | 1 | 1 |
Kelly v. Logan, Jolley, & Smith, L.L.P.green2 sentences2013Co., 357 S.C. 386, 395 , 593 S.E.2d 183, 187 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The date on which discovery of the cause of action should have been made is an objective, rather than a subjective, question."); id. ("In other words, whether the particular plaintiff actually knew he had a claim is not the test."); id. ("Rather, courts must decide whether the circumstances of the case would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some right of his has been invaded, or that some claim against another party might exist."); Berry v. McLeod, 328 S.C. 435, 445 , 492 S.E.2d 794 , 799 (Ct. App. 199 2013Co., 357 S.C. 386, 395 , 593 S.E.2d 183, 187 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The date on which discovery of the cause of action should have been made is an objective, rather than a subjective, question."); id. ("In other words, whether the particular plaintiff actually knew he had a claim is not the test."); id. ("Rather, courts must decide whether the circumstances of the case would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some right of his has been invaded, or that some claim against another party might exist."); Berry v. McLeod, 328 S.C. 435, 445 , 492 S.E.2d 794 , 799 (Ct. App. 199 | 1 | 1 |
Singleton v. Sherergreen2 sentences2013As to Issues (3), (4), and (5), concerning whether the master erred in finding the circuit court's previous rulings were not binding: Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 560 , 462 S.E.2d 860, 861 (1995) ("The denial of a Rule 12(b)(6)[, SCRCP,] motion does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case."); id. ("Since the order denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not finally decide any issue, it is not directly appealable."); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 198 , 659 S.E.2d 196, 203 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The purpose of 2013As to Issues (3), (4), and (5), concerning whether the master erred in finding the circuit court's previous rulings were not binding: Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 560 , 462 S.E.2d 860, 861 (1995) ("The denial of a Rule 12(b)(6)[, SCRCP,] motion does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case."); id. ("Since the order denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not finally decide any issue, it is not directly appealable."); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 198 , 659 S.E.2d 196, 203 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The purpose of | 1 | 1 |
Abofreka v. Alston Tobacco Co.green2 sentences2011See Abofreka v. Alston Tobacco Co., 288 S.C. 122, 125 , 341 S.E.2d 622, 624 (1986) (stating a juror should be disqualified if it appears to the trial court “that the juror is not indifferent in the case”). 2011See Abofreka v. Alston Tobacco Co., 288 S.C. 122, 125 , 341 S.E.2d 622, 624 (1986) (stating a juror should be disqualified if it appears to the trial court “that the juror is not indifferent in the case”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Hortongreen2 sentences1997See In re Horton’s Estate, 5 N.J.Super. 518 , 68 A.2d 658, 658 (Ch.Div.1949), (the Superior Court of New Jersey construed a will leaving the residue of the testator’s property to “such of my nieces and nephews that shall survive me” as including grandnieces and grandnephews because extrinsic evidence showed testator did not draw a distinction between nieces and nephews and grandnieces and grandnephews; therefore her true intent was to include them as residuary beneficiaries.) See also 9 Wigmore, Evidence § 2458 (Chadbourn rev. 1981) (drawing a distinction between the standard for construction 1997See In re Horton’s Estate, 5 N.J.Super. 518 , 68 A.2d 658, 658 (Ch.Div.1949), (the Superior Court of New Jersey construed a will leaving the residue of the testator’s property to “such of my nieces and nephews that shall survive me” as including grandnieces and grandnephews because extrinsic evidence showed testator did not draw a distinction between nieces and nephews and grandnieces and grandnephews; therefore her true intent was to include them as residuary beneficiaries.) See also 9 Wigmore, Evidence § 2458 (Chadbourn rev. 1981) (drawing a distinction between the standard for construction | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2023"How the individual factors are weighed depends on the facts of each case." Johnson, 296 S.C. at 299 , 372 S.E.2d at 113 . 2023"How the individual factors are weighed depends on the facts of each case." Johnson, 296 S.C. at 299 , 372 S.E.2d at 113 . | 3 | 1994–2023 |
United States v. Branch
green
1 sentence2018United States v. Branch , 537 F.3d 328 , 337 (4th Cir. 2008). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Timothy Sanders
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 319 (citing United States v. Carpenter , 819 F.3d 880 , 886 (6th Cir. 2016) ); see also **175 United States v. Graham , 824 F.3d 421 , 427 (4th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (addressing historical cell-site location information and holding an individual can claim "no legitimate expectation of privacy" in information he voluntarily provided to a third party). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
The State v. Hill
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 319 (citing United States v. Carpenter , 819 F.3d 880 , 886 (6th Cir. 2016) ); see also **175 United States v. Graham , 824 F.3d 421 , 427 (4th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (addressing historical cell-site location information and holding an individual can claim "no legitimate expectation of privacy" in information he voluntarily provided to a third party). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Johnson v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1994Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289 , 372 S.E. (2d) 107 (Ct. App. 1988), cert. denied, 298 S.C. 117 , 378 S.E. (2d) 445 (1989). 1994Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289 , 372 S.E. (2d) 107 (Ct. App. 1988), cert. denied, 298 S.C. 117 , 378 S.E. (2d) 445 (1989). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Rheam v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma
green
2 sentences1970The weight of authority supports the conclusion that where the legislature authorizes the charging of student fees the board of regents acts legally in imposing the charge.’ (We omit the circuit decree’s analyses of the following additional cases supporting the exaction of student fees: Rheam v. Board of Regents, 161 Okl. 268 , 18 P. (2d) 535 (1933) ; State ex rel. 1970The weight of authority supports the conclusion that where the legislature authorizes the charging of student fees the board of regents acts legally in imposing the charge.’ (We omit the circuit decree’s analyses of the following additional cases supporting the exaction of student fees: Rheam v. Board of Regents, 161 Okl. 268 , 18 P. (2d) 535 (1933) ; State ex rel. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.