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 1986–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. Bunchgreen2 sentences2020Lee v. Bunch, 373 S.C. 654 , 647 S.E.2d 197 (2007) ("In South Carolina, claims for personal injuries and for loss of consortium are separate and distinct."). 2020Lee v. Bunch, 373 S.C. 654 , 647 S.E.2d 197 (2007) ("In South Carolina, claims for personal injuries and for loss of consortium are separate and distinct."). | 2 | 2 |
Preer v. Mimsgreen2 sentences2003Preer v. Mims, 323 S.C. 516 , 476 S.E.2d 472 (1996). 2003Preer v. Mims, 323 S.C. 516 , 476 S.E.2d 472 (1996). | 1 | 2 |
Craven v. Cunninghamgreen2 sentences2007See Craven v. Cunningham, 292 S.C. 441, 443 , 357 S.E.2d 23, 25 (1987) (jury’s award to injured spouse while denying wife’s consortium claim was consistent because wife’s claim was contested throughout trial); Burroughs v. Worsham, 352 S.C. 382 , 574 S.E.2d 215 (S.C.App.2002) (“[W]e find this is not sufficient to say that a plaintiff’s verdict on wrongful death and a defense verdict on loss of consortium are inconsistent.”); Daves, supra (after finding for injured husband on medical malpractice claim, it was not inconsistent for jury to find for defendant on wife’s *663 consortium claim becaus 2007See Craven v. Cunningham, 292 S.C. 441, 443 , 357 S.E.2d 23, 25 (1987) (jury’s award to injured spouse while denying wife’s consortium claim was consistent because wife’s claim was contested throughout trial); Burroughs v. Worsham, 352 S.C. 382 , 574 S.E.2d 215 (S.C.App.2002) (“[W]e find this is not sufficient to say that a plaintiff’s verdict on wrongful death and a defense verdict on loss of consortium are inconsistent.”); Daves, supra (after finding for injured husband on medical malpractice claim, it was not inconsistent for jury to find for defendant on wife’s *663 consortium claim becaus | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Medenicagreen2 sentences2007In Taylor v. Medenica, this Court held that the determination of which relationships may give rise to a loss of consortium claim in South Carolina is one best left to the discretion of the legislature. 324 S.C. 200, 222 , 479 S.E.2d 35, 47 (1996) (declining to recognize a cause of action for loss of parental consortium). 2007In Taylor v. Medenica, this Court held that the determination of which relationships may give rise to a loss of consortium claim in South Carolina is one best left to the discretion of the legislature. 324 S.C. 200, 222 , 479 S.E.2d 35, 47 (1996) (declining to recognize a cause of action for loss of parental consortium). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Smithgreen1 sentence1986See Smith v. Smith, 280 S. C. 257, 312 S. E. (2d) 560 (Ct. App. 1984) (wherein the family court was held not to have abused its discretion in awarding the wife an interest in bonds purchased by the husband from the net proceeds of funds paid in an unallocated settlement of the husband’s personal injury claim and the wife’s loss of consortium claim); cf. Foreman v. Foreman, 280 S. C. 461, 313 S. E. (2d) 312 (Ct. App. 1984) (wherein the evidence revealed the amounts paid in settlement of the husband’s claim for loss of consortium and of the wife’s claim for personal injuries resulting from the w | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burroughs v. Worsham
green
2 sentences2025However, the spouse, children, parents, or other heirs may be the beneficiaries of the wrongful death award." Id. "[A] ruling on one does not bar, nor entitle, recovery on the other claim." Id. at 406-07 , 574 S.E.2d at 227 . 2025However, the spouse, children, parents, or other heirs may be the beneficiaries of the wrongful death award." Id. "[A] ruling on one does not bar, nor entitle, recovery on the other claim." Id. at 406-07 , 574 S.E.2d at 227 . | 2 | 2007–2025 |
Stephens v. Draffin
green
2 sentences2003Stephens, 327 S.C. at 3 , 488 S.E.2d at 308 . 2003Stephens, 327 S.C. at 3 , 488 S.E.2d at 308 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Crowder v. Carroll
green
1 sentence1987Crowder v. Carroll, 251 S. C. 192, 161 S. E. (2d) 235 (1968). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Foreman v. Foreman
green
1 sentence1986See Smith v. Smith, 280 S. C. 257, 312 S. E. (2d) 560 (Ct. App. 1984) (wherein the family court was held not to have abused its discretion in awarding the wife an interest in bonds purchased by the husband from the net proceeds of funds paid in an unallocated settlement of the husband’s personal injury claim and the wife’s loss of consortium claim); cf. Foreman v. Foreman, 280 S. C. 461, 313 S. E. (2d) 312 (Ct. App. 1984) (wherein the evidence revealed the amounts paid in settlement of the husband’s claim for loss of consortium and of the wife’s claim for personal injuries resulting from the w | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.