layman to any lesser standard in South Carolina

2025Co. of Fla., 295 S.C. 400, 403 , 368 S.E.2d 687, 689 (Ct. App. 1988) ("[A] party has a duty to monitor the progress of his case."); id. ("Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied to an attorney."); McCall v. A-T-O, Inc., 276 S.C. 143, 145-47 , 276 S.E.2d 529, 530 (1981) (explaining the trial court erred in finding excusable neglect when an employee failed to forward pleadings and had a "lack of familiarity with legal proceedings").

2025Co. of Fla., 295 S.C. 400, 403 , 368 S.E.2d 687, 689 (Ct. App. 1988) ("[A] party has a duty to monitor the progress of his case."); id. ("Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied to an attorney."); McCall v. A-T-O, Inc., 276 S.C. 143, 145-47 , 276 S.E.2d 529, 530 (1981) (explaining the trial court erred in finding excusable neglect when an employee failed to forward pleadings and had a "lack of familiarity with legal proceedings").

2024Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied to an attorney." Id. at 310 , 547 S.E.2d at 897 (quoting Goodson v. Am. Bankers Ins.

2024Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied to an attorney." Id. at 310 , 547 S.E.2d at 897 (quoting Goodson v. Am. Bankers Ins.

2025Co. of Fla., 295 S.C. 400, 403 , 368 S.E.2d 687, 689 (Ct. App. 1988) ("[A] party has a duty to monitor the progress of his case."); id. ("Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied to an attorney."); McCall v. A-T-O, Inc., 276 S.C. 143, 145-47 , 276 S.E.2d 529, 530 (1981) (explaining the trial court erred in finding excusable neglect when an employee failed to forward pleadings and had a "lack of familiarity with legal proceedings").

2025Co. of Fla., 295 S.C. 400, 403 , 368 S.E.2d 687, 689 (Ct. App. 1988) ("[A] party has a duty to monitor the progress of his case."); id. ("Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied to an attorney."); McCall v. A-T-O, Inc., 276 S.C. 143, 145-47 , 276 S.E.2d 529, 530 (1981) (explaining the trial court erred in finding excusable neglect when an employee failed to forward pleadings and had a "lack of familiarity with legal proceedings").

2023Lack of familiarity with the legal proceeding is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied to an attorney."); Georganne Apparel, Inc. v. Todd, 303 S.C. 87, 92 , 399 S.E.2d 16, 19 (Ct. App. 1990) (noting dismissal with prejudice was warranted because the plaintiff "[was] given abundant opportunity to litigate" and exceeded the "limit beyond which the court should allow a litigant to consume the time of the court and to prolong unnecessarily time, effort, and costs to defending parties"). 2.

2023Lack of familiarity with the legal proceeding is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied to an attorney."); Georganne Apparel, Inc. v. Todd, 303 S.C. 87, 92 , 399 S.E.2d 16, 19 (Ct. App. 1990) (noting dismissal with prejudice was warranted because the plaintiff "[was] given abundant opportunity to litigate" and exceeded the "limit beyond which the court should allow a litigant to consume the time of the court and to prolong unnecessarily time, effort, and costs to defending parties"). 2.

2015As to whether SCBT proved a valid existing debt: Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 465 , 719 S.E.2d 640, 642 (2011) ("At a minimum, issue preservation requires that an issue be raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]."); Elam v. S.C.

2015As to whether SCBT proved a valid existing debt: Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 465 , 719 S.E.2d 640, 642 (2011) ("At a minimum, issue preservation requires that an issue be raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]."); Elam v. S.C.

2013Corp., 360 S.C. 503, 508 , 602 S.E.2d 99, 101 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The decision whether to set aside an entry of default or a default judgment lies solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge." (citations omitted)); id. (holding that the decision of whether to set aside a default judgment will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion); Hill v. Dotts, 345 S.C. 304, 310 , 547 S.E.2d 894, 897 (Ct. App. 2001) ("Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied to an attorney."); id. ("[F]ailure to unde

2013Corp., 360 S.C. 503, 508 , 602 S.E.2d 99, 101 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The decision whether to set aside an entry of default or a default judgment lies solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge." (citations omitted)); id. (holding that the decision of whether to set aside a default judgment will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion); Hill v. Dotts, 345 S.C. 304, 310 , 547 S.E.2d 894, 897 (Ct. App. 2001) ("Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied to an attorney."); id. ("[F]ailure to unde

2009Servs., Inc. , 358 S.C. 298, 311 , 594 S.E.2d 867, 873 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding that in reviewing a damages award, this court does not weigh the evidence, but determines if any evidence supports the award).

2009Servs., Inc. , 358 S.C. 298, 311 , 594 S.E.2d 867, 873 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding that in reviewing a damages award, this court does not weigh the evidence, but determines if any evidence supports the award).

2009Co. of Fla. , 295 S.C. 400, 403 , 368 S.E.2d 687, 689 (Ct. App. 1988) (“Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied to an attorney.”); and Issue 4: Howard v. Holiday Inns, Inc. , 271 S.C. 238, 242 , 246 S.E.2d 880, 882 (1978) (holding that at the damages hearing in a default judgment proceeding, the defendant may only participate by cross-examining witnesses and objecting to evidence); Austin v. Specialty Transp.

2009Co. of Fla. , 295 S.C. 400, 403 , 368 S.E.2d 687, 689 (Ct. App. 1988) (“Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied to an attorney.”); and Issue 4: Howard v. Holiday Inns, Inc. , 271 S.C. 238, 242 , 246 S.E.2d 880, 882 (1978) (holding that at the damages hearing in a default judgment proceeding, the defendant may only participate by cross-examining witnesses and objecting to evidence); Austin v. Specialty Transp.

2004Co. of Fla. , 295 S.C. 400, 403 , 368 S.E.2d 687, 689 (“Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard that is applied to an attorney.”); State v. Lytchfield , 230 S.C. 405 , ___, 95 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1957) (“The granting or refusal of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial judge and his disposition of such a motion will not be reversed on appeal unless it is shown that there was an abuse of discretion to the prejudice of appellant.”).

2004Co. of Fla. , 295 S.C. 400, 403 , 368 S.E.2d 687, 689 (“Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard that is applied to an attorney.”); State v. Lytchfield , 230 S.C. 405 , ___, 95 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1957) (“The granting or refusal of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial judge and his disposition of such a motion will not be reversed on appeal unless it is shown that there was an abuse of discretion to the prejudice of appellant.”).