Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hartley v. John Wesley United Methodist Churchgreen2 sentences2016Therefore, if a claimant cannot prove the elements of adverse use, then, under the Court of Appeals’ approach, the claimant could establish a prescriptive easement under a claim of right. “[I]n order for a party to earn a prescriptive easement under claim of right he must demonstrate a substantial belief that he had the right to use the [property] based upon the totality of circumstances surrounding his use.” Hartley v. John Wesley United Methodist Church of Johns Island, 355 S.C. 145, 151 , 584 S.E.2d 386, 389 (Ct. App. 2003). 2016Therefore, if a claimant cannot prove the elements of adverse use, then, under the Court of Appeals’ approach, the claimant could establish a prescriptive easement under a claim of right. “[I]n order for a party to earn a prescriptive easement under claim of right he must demonstrate a substantial belief that he had the right to use the [property] based upon the totality of circumstances surrounding his use.” Hartley v. John Wesley United Methodist Church of Johns Island, 355 S.C. 145, 151 , 584 S.E.2d 386, 389 (Ct. App. 2003). | 5 | 6 |
Revis v. Barrettgreen2 sentences2016Elec. & Gas Co., 361 S.C. 434, 440-41 , 604 S.E.2d 714, 717 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding respondent established a prescriptive easement under claim of right because it believed it had the right to use the property for the power lines); Revis v. Barrett, 321 S.C. 206, 210 , 467 S.E.2d 460, 462 (Ct. App. 1996) (determining plaintiff established a prescriptive easement to the use of an old road under claim of right based on her belief that she had the right to use the road). 3 . 2016Elec. & Gas Co., 361 S.C. 434, 440-41 , 604 S.E.2d 714, 717 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding respondent established a prescriptive easement under claim of right because it believed it had the right to use the property for the power lines); Revis v. Barrett, 321 S.C. 206, 210 , 467 S.E.2d 460, 462 (Ct. App. 1996) (determining plaintiff established a prescriptive easement to the use of an old road under claim of right based on her belief that she had the right to use the road). 3 . | 4 | 5 |
Morrow v. Dychesgreen2 sentences2012Claim of Right A party claiming a prescriptive easement under a claim of right “must demonstrate a substantial belief that he had the right to use the parcel or road based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding his use.” Hartley v. John Wesley United Methodist Church, 355 S.C. 145, 151, 584 S.E.2d 386, 389 (Ct.App.2003); see Revis v. Barrett, 321 S.C. 206, 209 , 467 S.E.2d 460, 462 (Ct.App.1996) (holding a party’s belief that she had a right to use a road flowed from a claim of right that originated with her parents’ use of the roadway to access the property, and her use of the roa 2012Claim of Right A party claiming a prescriptive easement under a claim of right “must demonstrate a substantial belief that he had the right to use the parcel or road based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding his use.” Hartley v. John Wesley United Methodist Church, 355 S.C. 145, 151, 584 S.E.2d 386, 389 (Ct.App.2003); see Revis v. Barrett, 321 S.C. 206, 209 , 467 S.E.2d 460, 462 (Ct.App.1996) (holding a party’s belief that she had a right to use a road flowed from a claim of right that originated with her parents’ use of the roadway to access the property, and her use of the roa | 3 | 3 |
Loftis v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.green2 sentences2016Elec. & Gas Co., 361 S.C. 434, 440-41 , 604 S.E.2d 714, 717 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding respondent established a prescriptive easement under claim of right because it believed it had the right to use the property for the power lines); Revis v. Barrett, 321 S.C. 206, 210 , 467 S.E.2d 460, 462 (Ct. App. 1996) (determining plaintiff established a prescriptive easement to the use of an old road under claim of right based on her belief that she had the right to use the road). 3 . 2016Elec. & Gas Co., 361 S.C. 434, 440-41 , 604 S.E.2d 714, 717 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding respondent established a prescriptive easement under claim of right because it believed it had the right to use the property for the power lines); Revis v. Barrett, 321 S.C. 206, 210 , 467 S.E.2d 460, 462 (Ct. App. 1996) (determining plaintiff established a prescriptive easement to the use of an old road under claim of right based on her belief that she had the right to use the road). 3 . | 2 | 2 |
Matthews v. Dennisgreen2 sentences2012Matthews v. Dennis, 365 S.C. 245, 250 , 616 S.E.2d 437, 440 (Ct.App.2005). 2012Matthews v. Dennis, 365 S.C. 245, 250 , 616 S.E.2d 437, 440 (Ct.App.2005). | 2 | 2 |
Paine Gayle Properties, LLC v. CSX Transportation, Inc.green2 sentences2013See McCrea v. City of Georgetown, 384 S.C. 328, 332 , 681 S.E.2d 918, 921 (Ct. App. 2009) (noting stipulations are binding on the parties as well as the court); Paine Gayle Properties, LLC v. CSX Transp., Inc., 400 S.C. 568, 585-86 , 735 S.E.2d 528, 537-38 (Ct. App. 2012) (discussing permissive use of the disputed property and finding the granting of permission to use the property defeats a prescriptive easement claim). 2013See McCrea v. City of Georgetown, 384 S.C. 328, 332 , 681 S.E.2d 918, 921 (Ct. App. 2009) (noting stipulations are binding on the parties as well as the court); Paine Gayle Properties, LLC v. CSX Transp., Inc., 400 S.C. 568, 585-86 , 735 S.E.2d 528, 537-38 (Ct. App. 2012) (discussing permissive use of the disputed property and finding the granting of permission to use the property defeats a prescriptive easement claim). | 1 | 2 |
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 |
Brasington v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2016Williamson is not the only case in which this comma appears after the term "adverse.” For example, in Brasington v. Williams, 143 S.C. 223, 261 , 141 S.E. 375, 387 (1927) (Watts, C.J., dissenting), Poole v. Edwards, 197 S.C. 280, 283 , 15 S.E.2d 349, 350 (1941), and Sanitary & Aseptic Package Co. v. Shealy, 205 S.C. 198, 203 , 31 S.E.2d 253, 255 (1944), this Court cited the Williamson test, with the comma, verbatim. 2016Williamson is not the only case in which this comma appears after the term "adverse.” For example, in Brasington v. Williams, 143 S.C. 223, 261 , 141 S.E. 375, 387 (1927) (Watts, C.J., dissenting), Poole v. Edwards, 197 S.C. 280, 283 , 15 S.E.2d 349, 350 (1941), and Sanitary & Aseptic Package Co. v. Shealy, 205 S.C. 198, 203 , 31 S.E.2d 253, 255 (1944), this Court cited the Williamson test, with the comma, verbatim. | 1 | 1 |
Sanitary & Aseptic Package Co. v. Shealygreen2 sentences2016Williamson is not the only case in which this comma appears after the term "adverse.” For example, in Brasington v. Williams, 143 S.C. 223, 261 , 141 S.E. 375, 387 (1927) (Watts, C.J., dissenting), Poole v. Edwards, 197 S.C. 280, 283 , 15 S.E.2d 349, 350 (1941), and Sanitary & Aseptic Package Co. v. Shealy, 205 S.C. 198, 203 , 31 S.E.2d 253, 255 (1944), this Court cited the Williamson test, with the comma, verbatim. 2016Williamson is not the only case in which this comma appears after the term "adverse.” For example, in Brasington v. Williams, 143 S.C. 223, 261 , 141 S.E. 375, 387 (1927) (Watts, C.J., dissenting), Poole v. Edwards, 197 S.C. 280, 283 , 15 S.E.2d 349, 350 (1941), and Sanitary & Aseptic Package Co. v. Shealy, 205 S.C. 198, 203 , 31 S.E.2d 253, 255 (1944), this Court cited the Williamson test, with the comma, verbatim. | 1 | 1 |
Poole v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2016Williamson is not the only case in which this comma appears after the term "adverse.” For example, in Brasington v. Williams, 143 S.C. 223, 261 , 141 S.E. 375, 387 (1927) (Watts, C.J., dissenting), Poole v. Edwards, 197 S.C. 280, 283 , 15 S.E.2d 349, 350 (1941), and Sanitary & Aseptic Package Co. v. Shealy, 205 S.C. 198, 203 , 31 S.E.2d 253, 255 (1944), this Court cited the Williamson test, with the comma, verbatim. 2016Williamson is not the only case in which this comma appears after the term "adverse.” For example, in Brasington v. Williams, 143 S.C. 223, 261 , 141 S.E. 375, 387 (1927) (Watts, C.J., dissenting), Poole v. Edwards, 197 S.C. 280, 283 , 15 S.E.2d 349, 350 (1941), and Sanitary & Aseptic Package Co. v. Shealy, 205 S.C. 198, 203 , 31 S.E.2d 253, 255 (1944), this Court cited the Williamson test, with the comma, verbatim. | 1 | 1 |
McCrea v. City of Georgetowngreen2 sentences2013See McCrea v. City of Georgetown, 384 S.C. 328, 332 , 681 S.E.2d 918, 921 (Ct. App. 2009) (noting stipulations are binding on the parties as well as the court); Paine Gayle Properties, LLC v. CSX Transp., Inc., 400 S.C. 568, 585-86 , 735 S.E.2d 528, 537-38 (Ct. App. 2012) (discussing permissive use of the disputed property and finding the granting of permission to use the property defeats a prescriptive easement claim). 2013See McCrea v. City of Georgetown, 384 S.C. 328, 332 , 681 S.E.2d 918, 921 (Ct. App. 2009) (noting stipulations are binding on the parties as well as the court); Paine Gayle Properties, LLC v. CSX Transp., Inc., 400 S.C. 568, 585-86 , 735 S.E.2d 528, 537-38 (Ct. App. 2012) (discussing permissive use of the disputed property and finding the granting of permission to use the property defeats a prescriptive easement claim). | 1 | 1 |
Murrells Inlet Corp. v. Wardgreen2 sentences2012Murrells Inlet Corp. v. Ward, 378 S.C. 225, 232 , 662 S.E.2d 452, 455 (Ct.App.2008). 2012Murrells Inlet Corp. v. Ward, 378 S.C. 225, 232 , 662 S.E.2d 452, 455 (Ct.App.2008). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simmons v. Berkeley Electric Cooperative, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024In Simmons, our supreme court clarified the test to be used in analyzing a prescriptive easement claim. 419 S.C. at 230 , 797 S.E.2d at 391 . 2024In Simmons, our supreme court clarified the test to be used in analyzing a prescriptive easement claim. 419 S.C. at 230 , 797 S.E.2d at 391 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Eldridge v. City of Greenwood
green
2 sentences1997Co., 85 S.C. 440 , 67 S.E. 546 (1910), the Morrows cite Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 300 S.C. 369 , 388 S.E.2d 247 (Ct.App.1989), for the proposition that if a railroad ceases to use its right-of-way for railroad purposes and intends to abandon the right-of-way, the property reverts back to its original grantor. 1997Co., 85 S.C. 440 , 67 S.E. 546 (1910), the Morrows cite Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 300 S.C. 369 , 388 S.E.2d 247 (Ct.App.1989), for the proposition that if a railroad ceases to use its right-of-way for railroad purposes and intends to abandon the right-of-way, the property reverts back to its original grantor. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Blume v. Southern Ry.
green
2 sentences1997Co., 85 S.C. 440 , 67 S.E. 546 (1910), the Morrows cite Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 300 S.C. 369 , 388 S.E.2d 247 (Ct.App.1989), for the proposition that if a railroad ceases to use its right-of-way for railroad purposes and intends to abandon the right-of-way, the property reverts back to its original grantor. 1997Co., 85 S.C. 440 , 67 S.E. 546 (1910), the Morrows cite Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 300 S.C. 369 , 388 S.E.2d 247 (Ct.App.1989), for the proposition that if a railroad ceases to use its right-of-way for railroad purposes and intends to abandon the right-of-way, the property reverts back to its original grantor. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.