subject matter test (South Carolina) · Go Syfert
← South Carolina issues

subject matter test in South Carolina

12 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1906–2014 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Anchor Gas, Inc. v. Border Black Top, Inc.green
minnctapp · 1986 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005See Anchor Gas, Inc. v. Border Black Top, Inc. , 381 N.W.2d 96 , 97-98 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986) (post-judgment discovery under Rule 69, Minn. RCP, may be conducted after issuance of writ of execution but prior to the writ being returned as unsatisfied).

2005See Anchor Gas, Inc. v. Border Black Top, Inc., 381 N.W.2d 96, 97-98 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (post-judgment discovery under Rule 69, Minn. RCP, may be conducted after issuance of writ of execution but prior to the writ being returned as unsatisfied).

22
Linog v. Yampolskygreen
sc · 2008 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014Linog v. Yampolsky, 376 S.C. 182, 187 , 656 S.E.2d 355, 358 (2008) (citing David v. McLeod Reg’l Med.

2014Linog v. Yampolsky, 376 S.C. 182, 187 , 656 S.E.2d 355, 358 (2008) (citing David v. McLeod Reg’l Med.

11

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 (8)

CaseCitedYears
Time, Inc. v. Firestone green
scotus · 1976
2 sentences

2006It was our recognition and rejection of this weakness in the Rosenbloom test which led us in Gertz to eschew a subject-matter test for one focusing upon the character of the defamation plaintiff." Time, 424 U.S. at 454-56 , 96 S.Ct. at 965-66 , 47 L.Ed.2d at 164 (citing Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)). [9] The ruling could be made before trial pursuant to a pretrial motion when facts pertaining to a plaintiff's status are either stipulated or sufficiently known, or made during trial after pertinent facts are sufficiently established.

2006It was our recognition and rejection of this weakness in the Rosenbloom test which led us in Gertz to eschew a subject-matter test for one focusing upon the character of the defamation plaintiff." Time, 424 U.S. at 454-56 , 96 S.Ct. at 965-66 , 47 L.Ed.2d at 164 (citing Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)). [9] The ruling could be made before trial pursuant to a pretrial motion when facts pertaining to a plaintiff's status are either stipulated or sufficiently known, or made during trial after pertinent facts are sufficiently established.

31982–2006
McCarty v. Piedmont Mutual Ins. green
sc · 1908
2 sentences

1914The agent is generally expert in these matters, and common honesty and fairness demand that the applicant be not misled, to his injury, by *381 the agents in one kind of an association as well as the other, whether the subject matter of waiver and estoppel relate to the form or the substance of the contract.” McCarty v. Insurance Co., 81 S. C. 152, 62 S. E. 1 , 18 L.

1911Co., 81 S. C. 152, 62 S. E. 1 .

21911–1914
Jimmy Myrick v. Prime Insurance Syndicate, Incorporated green
ca4 · 2005
1 sentence

2012Id. at 494-95 .

12012–2012
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. red
scotus · 1971
2 sentences

2006It was our recognition and rejection of this weakness in the Rosenbloom test which led us in Gertz to eschew a subject-matter test for one focusing upon the character of the defamation plaintiff." Time, 424 U.S. at 454-56 , 96 S.Ct. at 965-66 , 47 L.Ed.2d at 164 (citing Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)). [9] The ruling could be made before trial pursuant to a pretrial motion when facts pertaining to a plaintiff's status are either stipulated or sufficiently known, or made during trial after pertinent facts are sufficiently established.

2006It was our recognition and rejection of this weakness in the Rosenbloom test which led us in Gertz to eschew a subject-matter test for one focusing upon the character of the defamation plaintiff." Time, 424 U.S. at 454-56 , 96 S.Ct. at 965-66 , 47 L.Ed.2d at 164 (citing Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)). [9] The ruling could be made before trial pursuant to a pretrial motion when facts pertaining to a plaintiff's status are either stipulated or sufficiently known, or made during trial after pertinent facts are sufficiently established.

12006–2006
United States v. Mayer green
scotus · 1914
2 sentences

1952Slate v. Castleman, 219 S. C. 136, 64 S. E. (2d) 250 ; U S. v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55 , 35 S. Ct. 16 , 59 L.

1952Slate v. Castleman, 219 S. C. 136, 64 S. E. (2d) 250 ; U S. v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55 , 35 S. Ct. 16 , 59 L.

11952–1952
State v. Castleman green
sc · 1951
1 sentence

1952Slate v. Castleman, 219 S. C. 136, 64 S. E. (2d) 250 ; U S. v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55 , 35 S. Ct. 16 , 59 L.

11952–1952
State v. McDaniel green
sc · 1904
1 sentence

1930L., 977, it is said: “To bring acts and declarations within the doctrine of res gestae they must be connected with and grow out of the act or transaction which is the subject-matter of inquiry so as to form one continuous transaction, and must in some way illustrate, elucidate, qualify, or characterize the act, and in a legal sense be a part of it.” And at page 982: “Res gestae include all those facts and circumstances which are incidents of a particular litigated act, and which are illustrative of such act and in contemplation of law are part of the act itself.” In State v. Belcher, 13 S. C.,

11930–1930
In Re Chapman green
scotus · 1897
1 sentence

1906Re Chap man, 166 U. S., 661 .

11906–1906

Where else courts name it

TX 113 (1891–2026) PA 78 (1893–2026) IL 70 (1894–2025) OK 59 (1896–2011) NY 52 (1864–2026) CA 46 (1878–2026) GA 40 (1911–2016) VA 37 (1948–2023) FL 37 (1922–2022) MT 36 (1924–2021) CO 31 (1968–2010) MD 30 (1931–2024) IN 30 (1878–2025) OH 27 (1902–2026) MO 27 (1904–2017) CT 18 (1896–2022) NC 17 (1888–2025) MI 14 (1949–2023) LA 13 (1943–2017) WA 13 (1899–2020) NJ 12 (1941–2026) ID 12 (1919–2019) SC 12 (1906–2014) IA 11 (1931–2025) OR 11 (1900–2019) UT 11 (1903–2026) AL 10 (1848–2017) MN 10 (1911–2019) MA 10 (1875–2025) AR 9 (1896–1996) RI 9 (1909–2012) AZ 9 (1946–2018) NM 9 (1937–2013) HI 8 (1976–2013) MS 7 (1984–2019) WI 7 (1981–2010) VT 7 (1880–2015) DE 6 (1911–2026) KY 6 (1918–2024) ME 6 (1905–1973) TN 6 (1909–2024) NE 6 (1897–1956) NV 5 (1955–2017) WY 4 (1925–2005) WV 4 (1897–2022) DC 3 (1989–1995) NH 2 (1889–2010) KS 2 (1912–1923)

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