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.
10 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1936–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of York v. Turner-Murphy Co., Inc.green2 sentences2026If the plaintiff cannot meet this burden, then the professional cannot be found liable as a matter of law."); id. at 196 , 452 S.E.2d at 617 ("Where professional negligence is alleged, expert testimony is usually necessary to establish both the standard of care and the professional's deviation from that standard, unless the subject matter is within the area of common knowledge and experience of the layman so that no special learning is needed to evaluate the professional's conduct."). 2026If the plaintiff cannot meet this burden, then the professional cannot be found liable as a matter of law."); id. at 196 , 452 S.E.2d at 617 ("Where professional negligence is alleged, expert testimony is usually necessary to establish both the standard of care and the professional's deviation from that standard, unless the subject matter is within the area of common knowledge and experience of the layman so that no special learning is needed to evaluate the professional's conduct."). | 4 | 4 |
Dawkins v. Union Hospital Districtgreen2 sentences2022Dist., 408 S.C. 171, 176-78 , 758 S.E.2d 501, 504 (2014) (an example of an "ordinary negligence" case against a professional that did not require expert testimony). 2022Dist., 408 S.C. 171, 176-78 , 758 S.E.2d 501, 504 (2014) (an example of an "ordinary negligence" case against a professional that did not require expert testimony). | 1 | 1 |
United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Flores-Galarzagreen1 sentence2019It agreed with the district court that "[f]orcing carriers to give special handling to all packages containing goods used in a home . . . would resurrect the unwieldy patchwork of state laws that Congress intended to eliminate through the [FAAAA]." Id. (omission in original) (quoting United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Flores-Galarza, 275 F. Supp. 2d 155, 161 (D.P.R. 2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Gilliland v. Elmwood Propertiesgreen2 sentences1996See Gilliland v. Elmwood Properties, 301 S.C. 295 , 391 S.E.2d 577 (1990) (to survive summary judgment in a professional negligence case, a plaintiff must offer expert testimony to establish both the standard of care and the defendant’s deviation from that standard); City of York v. Turner-Murphy Co., 317 S.C. 194, 195-98 , 452 S.E.2d 615, 616-17 (Ct.App.1994) (holding that if the plaintiff cannot meet the burden of proving that “the professional failed to conform to generally recognized and accepted practices in the profession,” then the professional cannot be found liable as a matter of law) 1996See Gilliland v. Elmwood Properties, 301 S.C. 295 , 391 S.E.2d 577 (1990) (to survive summary judgment in a professional negligence case, a plaintiff must offer expert testimony to establish both the standard of care and the defendant’s deviation from that standard); City of York v. Turner-Murphy Co., 317 S.C. 194, 195-98 , 452 S.E.2d 615, 616-17 (Ct.App.1994) (holding that if the plaintiff cannot meet the burden of proving that “the professional failed to conform to generally recognized and accepted practices in the profession,” then the professional cannot be found liable as a matter of law) | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Flores-Galarza
green
2 sentences2019The court rejected the argument this definition was too narrow, explaining "the enjoined scheme impermissibly affected UPS's prices, routes, and services in part because it required UPS to identify the contents of the packages (a deviation from standard procedures used for deliveries elsewhere in the United States) . . . ." Id. 2019It agreed with the district court that "[f]orcing carriers to give special handling to all packages containing goods used in a home . . . would resurrect the unwieldy patchwork of state laws that Congress intended to eliminate through the [FAAAA]." Id. (omission in original) (quoting United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Flores-Galarza, 275 F. Supp. 2d 155, 161 (D.P.R. 2003)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Stallings v. Ratliff
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 353 , 356 S.E.2d at 417 . 2010Id. at 353 , 356 S.E.2d at 417 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hoeffner Ex Rel. Estate of Hoeffner v. Citadel
green
1 sentence1994Hoeffner v. The Citadel, — S.C. —, 429 S.E. (2d) 190 (1993). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Pederson v. Gould
green
1 sentence1989The affidavits of Boatwright and the plaintiff as a matter of law do not meet the requirements set out in Pederson v. Gould, 288 S. C. 141, 341 S. E. (2d) 633 (1986). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Gasque v. Heublein, Inc.
green
1 sentence1985As this court held in Gasque v. Heublein, 281 S. C. 278, 315 S. E. (2d) 556 (S. C. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Bailey, Judge of Probate v. Cooley
neutral
1 sentence1936In the case of Bailey, Judge of Probate, et al., v. Cooley et al., 153 S. C., 78, 150 S. E., 473, 475 , Mr. Chief Justice Watts, speaking for the Court, said: “Fraud while forming a sufficient ground for direct attack on a judgment, does not justify a collateral attack there•on. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.