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.
15 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. Williams and Madjanik, Inc.green2 sentences2000See Peay v. U.S. Silica Co., 313 S.C. 91, 94 , 437 S.E.2d 64, 65 (1993) ("Workers’ compensation laws were intended by the Legislature to relieve workers of the uncertainties of a trial for damages by providing sure, swift recovery for workplace injuries regardless of fault.”); Parker v. Williams & Madjanik, Inc., 275 S.C. 65 , 70, 267 S.E.2d 524 , 526 (1980) ("The employee receives the right to swift and sure compensation; the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee.”). . 2000See Peay v. U.S. Silica Co., 313 S.C. 91, 94 , 437 S.E.2d 64, 65 (1993) ("Workers’ compensation laws were intended by the Legislature to relieve workers of the uncertainties of a trial for damages by providing sure, swift recovery for workplace injuries regardless of fault.”); Parker v. Williams & Madjanik, Inc., 275 S.C. 65 , 70, 267 S.E.2d 524 , 526 (1980) ("The employee receives the right to swift and sure compensation; the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee.”). . | 3 | 6 |
Wright v. Smallwoodgreen2 sentences2023"Under the scheme [set forth in the Act], the employee receives the right to swift and sure compensation; the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee." Wright v. Smallwood, 308 S.C. 471, 475 , 419 S.E.2d 219, 221 (1992) (cleaned up); see also Nolan v. Daley, 222 S.C. 407, 416 , 73 S.E.2d 449, 453 (1952) (explaining the Act confers tort immunity not only on the employer but also on any negligent co-employees). 2023"Under the scheme [set forth in the Act], the employee receives the right to swift and sure compensation; the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee." Wright v. Smallwood, 308 S.C. 471, 475 , 419 S.E.2d 219, 221 (1992) (cleaned up); see also Nolan v. Daley, 222 S.C. 407, 416 , 73 S.E.2d 449, 453 (1952) (explaining the Act confers tort immunity not only on the employer but also on any negligent co-employees). | 3 | 3 |
Nolan v. Daleygreen2 sentences2023"Under the scheme [set forth in the Act], the employee receives the right to swift and sure compensation; the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee." Wright v. Smallwood, 308 S.C. 471, 475 , 419 S.E.2d 219, 221 (1992) (cleaned up); see also Nolan v. Daley, 222 S.C. 407, 416 , 73 S.E.2d 449, 453 (1952) (explaining the Act confers tort immunity not only on the employer but also on any negligent co-employees). 2023"Under the scheme [set forth in the Act], the employee receives the right to swift and sure compensation; the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee." Wright v. Smallwood, 308 S.C. 471, 475 , 419 S.E.2d 219, 221 (1992) (cleaned up); see also Nolan v. Daley, 222 S.C. 407, 416 , 73 S.E.2d 449, 453 (1952) (explaining the Act confers tort immunity not only on the employer but also on any negligent co-employees). | 3 | 3 |
Strickland v. Gallowaygreen2 sentences2009“The exclusive remedy doctrine was enacted to balance the relative ease with which the employee can recover under the Act: the employee gets swift, sure compensation, and the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee.” Id. at 442 , 597 S.E.2d at 868 (citing Strickland v. Galloway, 348 S.C. 644, 646 , 560 S.E.2d 448, 449 (Ct.App.2002)). 2009“The exclusive remedy doctrine was enacted to balance the relative ease with which the employee can recover under the Act: the employee gets swift, sure compensation, and the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee.” Id. at 442 , 597 S.E.2d at 868 (citing Strickland v. Galloway, 348 S.C. 644, 646 , 560 S.E.2d 448, 449 (Ct.App.2002)). | 1 | 3 |
Peay v. U.S. Silica Co.green2 sentences2000See Peay v. U.S. Silica Co., 313 S.C. 91, 94 , 437 S.E.2d 64, 65 (1993) ("Workers’ compensation laws were intended by the Legislature to relieve workers of the uncertainties of a trial for damages by providing sure, swift recovery for workplace injuries regardless of fault.”); Parker v. Williams & Madjanik, Inc., 275 S.C. 65 , 70, 267 S.E.2d 524 , 526 (1980) ("The employee receives the right to swift and sure compensation; the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee.”). . 2000See Peay v. U.S. Silica Co., 313 S.C. 91, 94 , 437 S.E.2d 64, 65 (1993) ("Workers’ compensation laws were intended by the Legislature to relieve workers of the uncertainties of a trial for damages by providing sure, swift recovery for workplace injuries regardless of fault.”); Parker v. Williams & Madjanik, Inc., 275 S.C. 65 , 70, 267 S.E.2d 524 , 526 (1980) ("The employee receives the right to swift and sure compensation; the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee.”). . | 1 | 1 |
Felder v. Wymangreen1 sentence2000See Felder v. Wyman, 139 F.R.D. 85, 88 (D.S.C.1991) (noting South Carolina does not recognize a physician-patient privilege and stating, “Absent a privilege no party is entitled to restrict an opponent’s access to a witness ...”); Doe v. Eli Lilly & Co., 99 F.R.D. 126, 128 (D.D.C. 1983) (“[N]o party to litigation has anything resembling a proprietary right to any witness’s evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Eli Lilly & Co.green1 sentence2000See Felder v. Wyman, 139 F.R.D. 85, 88 (D.S.C.1991) (noting South Carolina does not recognize a physician-patient privilege and stating, “Absent a privilege no party is entitled to restrict an opponent’s access to a witness ...”); Doe v. Eli Lilly & Co., 99 F.R.D. 126, 128 (D.D.C. 1983) (“[N]o party to litigation has anything resembling a proprietary right to any witness’s evidence. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Case v. Hermitage Cotton Mills
green
2 sentences2017“The employee receives the right to swift and sure compensation; the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee.” Id. 2013“The employee receives the right to swift and sure compensation; the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee.” Id. | 2 | 2013–2017 |
Edens v. Bellini
green
2 sentences2009“The exclusive remedy doctrine was enacted to balance the relative ease with which the employee can recover under the Act: the employee gets swift, sure compensation, and the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee.” Id. at 442 , 597 S.E.2d at 868 (citing Strickland v. Galloway, 348 S.C. 644, 646 , 560 S.E.2d 448, 449 (Ct.App.2002)). 2009“The exclusive remedy doctrine was enacted to balance the relative ease with which the employee can recover under the Act: the employee gets swift, sure compensation, and the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee.” Id. at 442 , 597 S.E.2d at 868 (citing Strickland v. Galloway, 348 S.C. 644, 646 , 560 S.E.2d 448, 449 (Ct.App.2002)). | 2 | 2008–2009 |
Poch v. Bayshore Concrete Products/South Carolina, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012“The exclusive remedy doctrine was enacted to balance the relative ease with which the employee can recover under the Act: the employee gets swift, sure compensation, and the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee.” Poch, 386 S.C. at 22 , 686 S.E.2d at 694 . 2012“The exclusive remedy doctrine was enacted to balance the relative ease with which the employee can recover under the Act: the employee gets swift, sure compensation, and the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee.” Poch, 386 S.C. at 22 , 686 S.E.2d at 694 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.