14 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1916–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clark v. SC DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETYgreen2 sentences2019Safety, 362 S.C. 377 , 382-83, 608 S.E.2d 573, 576 (2005) (stating an appellate court will reverse a trial court's ruling "on a directed verdict motion only where there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by error of law"). 2019Safety, 362 S.C. 377 , 382-83, 608 S.E.2d 573, 576 (2005) (stating an appellate court will reverse a trial court's ruling "on a directed verdict motion only where there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by error of law"). | 3 | 3 |
Law v. South Carolina Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2025Dep't of Corr., 368 S.C. 424, 434-35 , 629 S.E.2d 642, 648 (2006) (explaining the appellate court will reverse the trial court's ruling only when no evidence supports the ruling or when an error of law controls the ruling); Est. of Carr ex rel. 2025Dep't of Corr., 368 S.C. 424, 434-35 , 629 S.E.2d 642, 648 (2006) (explaining the appellate court will reverse the trial court's ruling only when no evidence supports the ruling or when an error of law controls the ruling); Est. of Carr ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
DeBondt v. Carlton Motorcars, Inc.green2 sentences2025Bolton, 379 S.C. at 43 , 664 S.E.2d at 89 ("To recover in an action under the SCUTPA, the plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive act in the conduct of trade or commerce; (2) the unfair or deceptive act affected the public interest; and (3) the plaintiff suffered monetary or property loss as a result of the defendant's unfair or deceptive act(s)."); § 39-5-20(a) (stating "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful"); deBondt v. Carlton Motorcars, Inc., 342 S.C. 2 2025Bolton, 379 S.C. at 43 , 664 S.E.2d at 89 ("To recover in an action under the SCUTPA, the plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive act in the conduct of trade or commerce; (2) the unfair or deceptive act affected the public interest; and (3) the plaintiff suffered monetary or property loss as a result of the defendant's unfair or deceptive act(s)."); § 39-5-20(a) (stating "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful"); deBondt v. Carlton Motorcars, Inc., 342 S.C. 2 | 1 | 1 |
Shenandoah Life Insurance v. Smallwoodgreen2 sentences2025Co., 402 S.C. at 35 , 737 S.E.2d at 860 ("[T]he appellate court must determine whether it would have been reasonably possible for the jury to return a verdict for the party opposing the motion."); Law, 368 S.C. at 434-35 , 629 S.E.2d at 648 (providing the appellate court will reverse the trial court's ruling only when no evidence supports the ruling or when an error of law controls the ruling); Eldeco, Inc. v. Charleston Cnty. 2025Co., 402 S.C. at 35 , 737 S.E.2d at 860 ("[T]he appellate court must determine whether it would have been reasonably possible for the jury to return a verdict for the party opposing the motion."); Law, 368 S.C. at 434-35 , 629 S.E.2d at 648 (providing the appellate court will reverse the trial court's ruling only when no evidence supports the ruling or when an error of law controls the ruling); Eldeco, Inc. v. Charleston Cnty. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Carr Ex Rel. Bolton v. Circle S Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2025Bolton, 379 S.C. at 43 , 664 S.E.2d at 89 ("To recover in an action under the SCUTPA, the plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive act in the conduct of trade or commerce; (2) the unfair or deceptive act affected the public interest; and (3) the plaintiff suffered monetary or property loss as a result of the defendant's unfair or deceptive act(s)."); § 39-5-20(a) (stating "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful"); deBondt v. Carlton Motorcars, Inc., 342 S.C. 2 2025Bolton, 379 S.C. at 43 , 664 S.E.2d at 89 ("To recover in an action under the SCUTPA, the plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive act in the conduct of trade or commerce; (2) the unfair or deceptive act affected the public interest; and (3) the plaintiff suffered monetary or property loss as a result of the defendant's unfair or deceptive act(s)."); § 39-5-20(a) (stating "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful"); deBondt v. Carlton Motorcars, Inc., 342 S.C. 2 | 1 | 1 |
Kinard v. Richardsongreen2 sentences2015See Kinard, 407 S.C. at 256 , 754 S.E.2d at 893 (recognizing that in an equitable action, "this court is not required to disregard the master's factual findings or ignore the fact that the master was in the better position to assess the credibility of the witnesses"). 3. 2015See Kinard, 407 S.C. at 256 , 754 S.E.2d at 893 (recognizing that in an equitable action, "this court is not required to disregard the master's factual findings or ignore the fact that the master was in the better position to assess the credibility of the witnesses"). 3. | 1 | 1 |
Waring v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2015Safety, 362 S.C. 377 , 382-83, 608 S.E.2d 573 , 576 (2005) (noting that an appellate court will reverse the trial court’s ruling on a directed verdict motion or JNOV motion only where there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by error of law); Waring v. Johnson, 341 S.C. 248, 256 , 533 S.E.2d 906, 910 (Ct.App.2000) (“The grant or denial of a motion for a new trial nisi rests within the discretion of the trial judge and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless his findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are control 2015Safety, 362 S.C. 377 , 382-83, 608 S.E.2d 573 , 576 (2005) (noting that an appellate court will reverse the trial court’s ruling on a directed verdict motion or JNOV motion only where there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by error of law); Waring v. Johnson, 341 S.C. 248, 256 , 533 S.E.2d 906, 910 (Ct.App.2000) (“The grant or denial of a motion for a new trial nisi rests within the discretion of the trial judge and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless his findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are control | 1 | 1 |
In Re Richard D.green2 sentences2012See State v. Hutto, 279 S.C. 131 , 132, 303 S.E.2d 90 , 91 (1983) (finding no error because the appellant did not meet his burden of presenting a record that was sufficiently complete for appellate review of the trial judge's actions); In re Richard D, 388 S.C. 95, 100 , 693 S.E.2d 447, 450 (Ct. App. 2010) (acknowledging that an issue on appeal may have been discussed during an off-the-record bench conference but holding this court "cannot review issues not contained in the record"). 2. 2012See State v. Hutto, 279 S.C. 131 , 132, 303 S.E.2d 90 , 91 (1983) (finding no error because the appellant did not meet his burden of presenting a record that was sufficiently complete for appellate review of the trial judge's actions); In re Richard D, 388 S.C. 95, 100 , 693 S.E.2d 447, 450 (Ct. App. 2010) (acknowledging that an issue on appeal may have been discussed during an off-the-record bench conference but holding this court "cannot review issues not contained in the record"). 2. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huttogreen2 sentences2012See State v. Hutto, 279 S.C. 131 , 132, 303 S.E.2d 90 , 91 (1983) (finding no error because the appellant did not meet his burden of presenting a record that was sufficiently complete for appellate review of the trial judge's actions); In re Richard D, 388 S.C. 95, 100 , 693 S.E.2d 447, 450 (Ct. App. 2010) (acknowledging that an issue on appeal may have been discussed during an off-the-record bench conference but holding this court "cannot review issues not contained in the record"). 2. 2012See State v. Hutto, 279 S.C. 131 , 132, 303 S.E.2d 90 , 91 (1983) (finding no error because the appellant did not meet his burden of presenting a record that was sufficiently complete for appellate review of the trial judge's actions); In re Richard D, 388 S.C. 95, 100 , 693 S.E.2d 447, 450 (Ct. App. 2010) (acknowledging that an issue on appeal may have been discussed during an off-the-record bench conference but holding this court "cannot review issues not contained in the record"). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Eberhardt v. Forrestergreen2 sentences2010Cf. Eberhardt v. Forrester, 241 S.C. 399, 403-04 , 128 S.E.2d 687, 689-90 (1962) (holding, in a civil action against the operator and the owners of a vehicle, that the operator’s post-collision statement regarding the vehicle’s brakes was admissible against the operator and that the owners were “entitled only to a ruling or instruction thereabout”). 2010Cf. Eberhardt v. Forrester, 241 S.C. 399, 403-04 , 128 S.E.2d 687, 689-90 (1962) (holding, in a civil action against the operator and the owners of a vehicle, that the operator’s post-collision statement regarding the vehicle’s brakes was admissible against the operator and that the owners were “entitled only to a ruling or instruction thereabout”). | 1 | 1 |
Floyd v. Thornton, SEC. of Stategreen2 sentences2009See Floyd v. Thornton , 220 S.C. 414, 425-26 , 68 S.E.2d 334, 339 (1951). 2009See Floyd v. Thornton , 220 S.C. 414, 425-26 , 68 S.E.2d 334, 339 (1951). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Boiter
green
2 sentences1996On appeal, Sprouse contends the trial judge’s ruling was error and that the evidence was admissible pursuant to State v. Boiter, 302 S.C. 381 , 396 S.E.2d 364 (1990), which provides: Evidence of prior false accusations by a complainant may be probative on the issue of credibility.... 1996On appeal, Sprouse contends the trial judge’s ruling was error and that the evidence was admissible pursuant to State v. Boiter, 302 S.C. 381 , 396 S.E.2d 364 (1990), which provides: Evidence of prior false accusations by a complainant may be probative on the issue of credibility.... | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Thompson v. Hammond
green
2 sentences1991Thompson v. Hammond, 299 S.C. 116 , 382 S.E. (2d) 900 (1989). 1991Thompson v. Hammond, 299 S.C. 116 , 382 S.E. (2d) 900 (1989). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hasell v. MED. SOC. OF SC INC.
green
1 sentence1986The decision of the trial judge is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with our decision in Hasell, supra. Reversed and remanded. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Thompson v. City of Lamar
green
1 sentence1930Va., 393 , 103 S. E., 352, 355 , the Court said: “Cases holding that such a company has breached no duty owed to a plaintiff injured by contact with its wires generally are distinguishable from those just cited upon the ground that the accident was of such a nature that the company in the exercise of reasonable care did not know and could not reasonably be expected to> *175 anticipate the presence of plaintiff at the point where the injury was received, or because the latter was aware of the danger and took the risk on his own responsibility.” (Citing numerous cases.) The ruling principle is q | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Love v. Virginian Power Co.
green
1 sentence1930Va., 393 , 103 S. E., 352, 355 , the Court said: “Cases holding that such a company has breached no duty owed to a plaintiff injured by contact with its wires generally are distinguishable from those just cited upon the ground that the accident was of such a nature that the company in the exercise of reasonable care did not know and could not reasonably be expected to> *175 anticipate the presence of plaintiff at the point where the injury was received, or because the latter was aware of the danger and took the risk on his own responsibility.” (Citing numerous cases.) The ruling principle is q | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Williams v. City of Sumter
neutral
1 sentence1930Va., 393 , 103 S. E., 352, 355 , the Court said: “Cases holding that such a company has breached no duty owed to a plaintiff injured by contact with its wires generally are distinguishable from those just cited upon the ground that the accident was of such a nature that the company in the exercise of reasonable care did not know and could not reasonably be expected to> *175 anticipate the presence of plaintiff at the point where the injury was received, or because the latter was aware of the danger and took the risk on his own responsibility.” (Citing numerous cases.) The ruling principle is q | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Sims v. Jones
green
1 sentence1916Sims v. Jones, 43 S. C. 91, 20 S. E. 905 . *241 3 The record shows that the testimony of the magistrate was introduced for the purpose of showing that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest, but that the claim in dispute was a part of the assets of the bankrupt estate. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.