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.
11 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2013 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wallace v. MILLIKEN & COMPANYgreen2 sentences2012See Hinton, 343 S.C. at 242 , 540 S.E.2d at 96 ("In reviewing a retaliatory discharge claim, the appellate court may find facts in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence." (citing Wallace, 305 S.C. at 120 , 406 S.E.2d at 359 )). 2012See Hinton, 343 S.C. at 242 , 540 S.E.2d at 96 ("In reviewing a retaliatory discharge claim, the appellate court may find facts in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence." (citing Wallace, 305 S.C. at 120 , 406 S.E.2d at 359 )). | 3 | 6 |
Hinton v. Designer Ensembles, Inc.green2 sentences2012See Hinton, 343 S.C. at 242 , 540 S.E.2d at 96 ("In reviewing a retaliatory discharge claim, the appellate court may find facts in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence." (citing Wallace, 305 S.C. at 120 , 406 S.E.2d at 359 )). 2012See Hinton, 343 S.C. at 242 , 540 S.E.2d at 96 ("In reviewing a retaliatory discharge claim, the appellate court may find facts in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence." (citing Wallace, 305 S.C. at 120 , 406 S.E.2d at 359 )). | 3 | 3 |
Richard Oldroyd v. Elmira Savings Bank, Fsbred2 sentences2013See Oldroyd, 134 F.3d at 77 (finding that because plaintiff alleged he was terminated under circumstances that gave rise to a retaliatory discharge claim, the claim touched matters covered by the employment contract and thus was within the scope of the contract’s arbitration clause). 2013Accordingly, we conclude that since Oldroyd alleges that he was terminated under circumstances giving rise to a retaliatory discharge claim, such claim touched matters covered by the employment agreement and therefore is clearly within the scope of the agreement’s arbitration clause. 134 F.3d at 77 . | 1 | 1 |
Lattie v. SHS Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2012Motors Corp. , 760 P.2d 803, 807 (Okla. 1988))); Lattie v. SHS Enters., Inc. , 300 S.C. 417, 419 , 389 S.E.2d 300, 301 (Ct. App. 1990) (finding proximity in time between the employee's filing of a workers' compensation claim and the firing may be relevant in a retaliatory discharge action); Hinton , 343 S.C. at 243 , 540 S.E.2d at 97 ("If the employer articulates a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the termination, the proximity in time between the work-related injury and the termination is not sufficient evidence to carry the employee's burden of proving a causal connection."). 3. 2012Motors Corp. , 760 P.2d 803, 807 (Okla. 1988))); Lattie v. SHS Enters., Inc. , 300 S.C. 417, 419 , 389 S.E.2d 300, 301 (Ct. App. 1990) (finding proximity in time between the employee's filing of a workers' compensation claim and the firing may be relevant in a retaliatory discharge action); Hinton , 343 S.C. at 243 , 540 S.E.2d at 97 ("If the employer articulates a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the termination, the proximity in time between the work-related injury and the termination is not sufficient evidence to carry the employee's burden of proving a causal connection."). 3. | 1 | 1 |
Buckner v. General Motors Corp.green1 sentence2012Motors Corp. , 760 P.2d 803, 807 (Okla. 1988))); Lattie v. SHS Enters., Inc. , 300 S.C. 417, 419 , 389 S.E.2d 300, 301 (Ct. App. 1990) (finding proximity in time between the employee's filing of a workers' compensation claim and the firing may be relevant in a retaliatory discharge action); Hinton , 343 S.C. at 243 , 540 S.E.2d at 97 ("If the employer articulates a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the termination, the proximity in time between the work-related injury and the termination is not sufficient evidence to carry the employee's burden of proving a causal connection."). 3. | 1 | 1 |
Horn v. Davis Electrical Constructors, Inc.green2 sentences2012Constructors, Inc., 302 S.C. 484, 491 , 395 S.E.2d 724, 728 (Ct.App.1990) (applying "the policy of this state that injured employees be fully compensated for their work-related injuries" to a retaliatory discharge claim under section 41-1-80). *111 Second, Prysmian argues that giving preclusive effect to the finding of the commission interferes with this court's scope of review in a retaliatory discharge case, which allows an appellate court to find facts according to its own view of the evidence. 2012Constructors, Inc., 302 S.C. 484, 491 , 395 S.E.2d 724, 728 (Ct.App.1990) (applying "the policy of this state that injured employees be fully compensated for their work-related injuries" to a retaliatory discharge claim under section 41-1-80). *111 Second, Prysmian argues that giving preclusive effect to the finding of the commission interferes with this court's scope of review in a retaliatory discharge case, which allows an appellate court to find facts according to its own view of the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. JP Stevens & Co., Inc.green2 sentences2006Stevens & Co. , 308 S.C. 116, 118 , 417 S.E.2d 527, 529 (1992). 2006Stevens & Co. , 308 S.C. 116, 118 , 417 S.E.2d 527, 529 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Marr v. City of Columbiagreen2 sentences2006Hinton v. Designer Ensembles, Inc. , 343 S.C. 236, 242 , 540 S.E.2d 94, 96 (2000); Marr v. City of Columbia , 307 S.C. 545, 548 , 416 S.E.2d 615, 617 (1992). 2006Hinton v. Designer Ensembles, Inc. , 343 S.C. 236, 242 , 540 S.E.2d 94, 96 (2000); Marr v. City of Columbia , 307 S.C. 545, 548 , 416 S.E.2d 615, 617 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc.green2 sentences1993See Ludwick v. This Minute of South Carolina, Inc., 287 S.C. 219 , 337 S.E. (2d) 213 (1985). 1993See Ludwick v. This Minute of South Carolina, Inc., 287 S.C. 219 , 337 S.E. (2d) 213 (1985). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bennett v. South Carolina Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Trico Technologies Corp. v. Montiel
green
1 sentence1998Trico Technologies Corp. v. Montiel, 949 S.W.2d 308 (Tex.1997). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Baldwin v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp.
green
1 sentence1996Cf. Baldwin v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp., 927 F.Supp. 1046 (M.D.Tenn.1996) (holding that for purposes of removal, § 301 does not completely preempt a retaliatory discharge claim based on the Tennessee right to work statute). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.
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.