governing legal principle (South Carolina) · Go Syfert
← South Carolina issues

governing legal principle in South Carolina

13 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2014 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Bazzle v. Green Tree Financial Corp.green
sc · 2002 · cited in 4 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2011
2 sentences

2011Corp., 351 S.C. 244, 268 , 569 S.E.2d 349, 361 (2002), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 539 U.S. 444 , 123 S.Ct. 2402 , 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (2003).

2011Corp., 351 S.C. 244, 268 , 569 S.E.2d 349, 361 (2002), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 539 U.S. 444 , 123 S.Ct. 2402 , 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (2003).

44
C-SCULPTURES, LLC v. Browngreen
scctapp · 2011 · cited in 3 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2012–2014
2 sentences

2014See C-Sculptures, LLC v. Brown, 394 S.C. 519, 523 , 716 S.E.2d 678, 680 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[F]or a court to vacate an arbitration award based upon an arbitrator's manifest disregard of the law, the governing law ignored by the arbitrator must be well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable. [M]anifest disregard of the law occurs when the arbitrator knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it, and the law disregarded was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)), rev'd on other grounds, 403 S.C. 53 , 742 S.E.2d

2014See C-Sculptures, LLC v. Brown, 394 S.C. 519, 523 , 716 S.E.2d 678, 680 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[F]or a court to vacate an arbitration award based upon an arbitrator's manifest disregard of the law, the governing law ignored by the arbitrator must be well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable. [M]anifest disregard of the law occurs when the arbitrator knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it, and the law disregarded was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)), rev'd on other grounds, 403 S.C. 53 , 742 S.E.2d

33
Harris v. Bennettgreen
scctapp · 1998 · cited in 3 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2002–2012
2 sentences

2012An award will be vacated only under narrow, limited circumstances." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Harris v. Bennett, 332 S.C. 238, 243 , 503 S.E.2d 782, 785 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[T]he decision of an [arbitrator] will be vacated only under certain grounds as provided by statute or upon the non-statutory ground of 'manifest disregard of the law.'"); C-Sculptures, 394 S.C. at 523 , 716 S.E.2d at 680 ("An arbitrator manifestly disregards the law when he or she appreciates the existence of a clearly governing legal principle and decides to ignore it."); Trident Technical Coll. v. Lucas & Stubbs

2012An award will be vacated only under narrow, limited circumstances." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Harris v. Bennett, 332 S.C. 238, 243 , 503 S.E.2d 782, 785 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[T]he decision of an [arbitrator] will be vacated only under certain grounds as provided by statute or upon the non-statutory ground of 'manifest disregard of the law.'"); C-Sculptures, 394 S.C. at 523 , 716 S.E.2d at 680 ("An arbitrator manifestly disregards the law when he or she appreciates the existence of a clearly governing legal principle and decides to ignore it."); Trident Technical Coll. v. Lucas & Stubbs

33
C-Sculptures, LLC v. Browngreen
sc · 2013 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014
2 sentences

2014See C-Sculptures, LLC v. Brown, 394 S.C. 519, 523 , 716 S.E.2d 678, 680 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[F]or a court to vacate an arbitration award based upon an arbitrator's manifest disregard of the law, the governing law ignored by the arbitrator must be well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable. [M]anifest disregard of the law occurs when the arbitrator knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it, and the law disregarded was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)), rev'd on other grounds, 403 S.C. 53 , 742 S.E.2d

2014See C-Sculptures, LLC v. Brown, 394 S.C. 519, 523 , 716 S.E.2d 678, 680 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[F]or a court to vacate an arbitration award based upon an arbitrator's manifest disregard of the law, the governing law ignored by the arbitrator must be well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable. [M]anifest disregard of the law occurs when the arbitrator knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it, and the law disregarded was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)), rev'd on other grounds, 403 S.C. 53 , 742 S.E.2d

22
cluster 566879green
ca8 · 1991 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1998–2002
2 sentences

2002See, e.g., Marshall v. Green Giant Co., 942 F.2d 539 (8th Cir.1991) (“manifest disregard of the law” which allows court to intrude upon arbitrator’s decision exists when arbitrator commits error that was obvious and capable of being instantly perceived by average person qualified to be an arbitrator; “disregard” implies the arbitrator appreciates the existence of a clearly governing legal principle, but decides to ignore or pay no attention to it).

2002See, e.g., Marshall v. Green Giant Co., 942 F.2d 539 (8th Cir.1991) ("manifest disregard of the law" which allows court to intrude upon arbitrator's decision exists when arbitrator commits error that was obvious and capable of being instantly perceived by average person qualified to be an arbitrator; "disregard" implies the arbitrator appreciates the existence of a clearly governing legal principle, but decides to ignore or pay no attention to it).

22
Trident Technical College v. Lucas & Stubbs, Ltd.green
sc · 1985 · cited in 3 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2002–2013
2 sentences

2013Indeed, “[a]n arbitrator’s ‘manifest disregard of the law,’ as a basis for vacating an arbitration award occurs when the arbitrator knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it.” Id. at 241-12 , 676 S.E.2d at 323 .

2012An award will be vacated only under narrow, limited circumstances." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Harris v. Bennett, 332 S.C. 238, 243 , 503 S.E.2d 782, 785 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[T]he decision of an [arbitrator] will be vacated only under certain grounds as provided by statute or upon the non-statutory ground of 'manifest disregard of the law.'"); C-Sculptures, 394 S.C. at 523 , 716 S.E.2d at 680 ("An arbitrator manifestly disregards the law when he or she appreciates the existence of a clearly governing legal principle and decides to ignore it."); Trident Technical Coll. v. Lucas & Stubbs

13

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle green
scotus · 2003
2 sentences

2011Corp., 351 S.C. 244, 268 , 569 S.E.2d 349, 361 (2002), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 539 U.S. 444 , 123 S.Ct. 2402 , 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (2003).

2011Corp., 351 S.C. 244, 268 , 569 S.E.2d 349, 361 (2002), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 539 U.S. 444 , 123 S.Ct. 2402 , 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (2003).

42005–2011
Batten v. Howell green
scctapp · 1990
2 sentences

2006Absent one of these grounds, an arbitration award will be vacated only on the non-statutory ground of “manifest disregard or perverse misconstruction of the law.” Batten , 300 S.C. at 548 , 389 S.E.2d at 172 . “[M]anifest disregard of the law occurs when the arbitrator knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it, and the law disregarded was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case.” Bazzle v. Green Tree Fin.

2006Absent one of these grounds, an arbitration award will be vacated only on the non-statutory ground of “manifest disregard or perverse misconstruction of the law.” Batten , 300 S.C. at 548 , 389 S.E.2d at 172 . “[M]anifest disregard of the law occurs when the arbitrator knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it, and the law disregarded was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case.” Bazzle v. Green Tree Fin.

22006–2006
Gissel v. Hart green
sc · 2009
1 sentence

2013Indeed, “[a]n arbitrator’s ‘manifest disregard of the law,’ as a basis for vacating an arbitration award occurs when the arbitrator knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it.” Id. at 241-12 , 676 S.E.2d at 323 .

12013–2013
Weimer v. Jones green
scctapp · 2005
1 sentence

2009Weimer v. Jones, 364 *242 S.C. 78, 610 S.E.2d 850 (Ct.App.2005).

12009–2009
Georgia Department of Medical Assistance v. Bowen green
scotus · 1986
2 sentences

2002(App. Br. p. 12) (citing Trident Technical College v. Lucas Stubbs, Ltd., 286 S.C. 98 , 333 S.E.2d 781 (1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 1060 , 106 S.Ct 803 , 88 L.Ed.2d 779 (1986)).

2002(App. Br. p. 12) (citing Trident Technical College v. Lucas Stubbs, Ltd., 286 S.C. 98 , 333 S.E.2d 781 (1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 1060 , 106 S.Ct 803 , 88 L.Ed.2d 779 (1986)).

12002–2002
Local Union 542, International Union of Operating Engineers v. Pennsylvania green
scotus · 1986
1 sentence

2002(App. Br. p. 12) (citing Trident Technical College v. Lucas Stubbs, Ltd., 286 S.C. 98 , 333 S.E.2d 781 (1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 1060 , 106 S.Ct 803 , 88 L.Ed.2d 779 (1986)).

12002–2002

Statutes the citing opinions construe

SC § S.C. Code Ann. § 15-48-130 (7) SC § S.C. Code Ann. § 15-48-140 (4) SC § S.C. Code Ann. § 29-5-10 (3) USC § 9u.s.c.10 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 44 (1998–2026) CT 41 (1996–2025) PA 32 (1985–2026) UT 23 (1996–2024) CA 18 (1975–2026) SC 13 (1998–2014) ID 12 (2005–2025) TX 11 (2011–2023) VA 10 (2004–2025) LA 10 (1991–2023) IL 9 (1994–2026) NJ 6 (1992–2026) CO 6 (2004–2025) MI 6 (1982–2019) KS 6 (2002–2024) AL 5 (2001–2013) MT 5 (1997–2013) GA 5 (2002–2014) WA 5 (1972–2018) VT 4 (2006–2023) OH 3 (2007–2019) AR 3 (2007–2008) MA 3 (2010–2017) MN 3 (1998–2014) OR 3 (2007–2022) KY 3 (2006–2018) MO 2 (2004–2017) FL 2 (2007–2012) IN 2 (1933–1935) OK 2 (2014–2014) MD 2 (2015–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check