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.
9 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
McClurg v. Deatongreen2 sentences2025See McLaughlin v. Williams, 379 S.C. 451, 455, 458-59 , 665 S.E.2d 667, 669, 671-72 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding home buyers did not have a right to rely on a disclosure statement that indicated no problems with "water seepage, leakage, dampness or standing water" in part because the pre-closing home inspection report and CL-100 revealed "moisture damage" but buyers still moved into the property); McClurg v. Deaton, 380 S.C. 563, 575 , 671 S.E.2d 87, 94 (Ct. App. 2008) (stating a meritorious defense "need be only one which is worthy of a hearing or judicial inquiry because it raises a question of 2025See McLaughlin v. Williams, 379 S.C. 451, 455, 458-59 , 665 S.E.2d 667, 669, 671-72 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding home buyers did not have a right to rely on a disclosure statement that indicated no problems with "water seepage, leakage, dampness or standing water" in part because the pre-closing home inspection report and CL-100 revealed "moisture damage" but buyers still moved into the property); McClurg v. Deaton, 380 S.C. 563, 575 , 671 S.E.2d 87, 94 (Ct. App. 2008) (stating a meritorious defense "need be only one which is worthy of a hearing or judicial inquiry because it raises a question of | 3 | 3 |
Thompson v. Hammondgreen2 sentences2025See McLaughlin v. Williams, 379 S.C. 451, 455, 458-59 , 665 S.E.2d 667, 669, 671-72 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding home buyers did not have a right to rely on a disclosure statement that indicated no problems with "water seepage, leakage, dampness or standing water" in part because the pre-closing home inspection report and CL-100 revealed "moisture damage" but buyers still moved into the property); McClurg v. Deaton, 380 S.C. 563, 575 , 671 S.E.2d 87, 94 (Ct. App. 2008) (stating a meritorious defense "need be only one which is worthy of a hearing or judicial inquiry because it raises a question of 2025See McLaughlin v. Williams, 379 S.C. 451, 455, 458-59 , 665 S.E.2d 667, 669, 671-72 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding home buyers did not have a right to rely on a disclosure statement that indicated no problems with "water seepage, leakage, dampness or standing water" in part because the pre-closing home inspection report and CL-100 revealed "moisture damage" but buyers still moved into the property); McClurg v. Deaton, 380 S.C. 563, 575 , 671 S.E.2d 87, 94 (Ct. App. 2008) (stating a meritorious defense "need be only one which is worthy of a hearing or judicial inquiry because it raises a question of | 2 | 4 |
Graham v. Town of Lorisgreen2 sentences2011A meritorious defense need only be one “worthy of a hearing or judicial inquiry because it raises a question of law deserving of some investigation or a real controversy as to real facts arising from conflicting or doubtful evidence.” Id. (quoting Graham v. Town of Loris, 272 S.C. 442 , 248 S.E.2d 594 (1978)). 2011A meritorious defense need only be one “worthy of a hearing or judicial inquiry because it raises a question of law deserving of some investigation or a real controversy as to real facts arising from conflicting or doubtful evidence.” Id. (quoting Graham v. Town of Loris, 272 S.C. 442 , 248 S.E.2d 594 (1978)). | 1 | 6 |
McLaughlin v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2025See McLaughlin v. Williams, 379 S.C. 451, 455, 458-59 , 665 S.E.2d 667, 669, 671-72 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding home buyers did not have a right to rely on a disclosure statement that indicated no problems with "water seepage, leakage, dampness or standing water" in part because the pre-closing home inspection report and CL-100 revealed "moisture damage" but buyers still moved into the property); McClurg v. Deaton, 380 S.C. 563, 575 , 671 S.E.2d 87, 94 (Ct. App. 2008) (stating a meritorious defense "need be only one which is worthy of a hearing or judicial inquiry because it raises a question of 2025See McLaughlin v. Williams, 379 S.C. 451, 455, 458-59 , 665 S.E.2d 667, 669, 671-72 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding home buyers did not have a right to rely on a disclosure statement that indicated no problems with "water seepage, leakage, dampness or standing water" in part because the pre-closing home inspection report and CL-100 revealed "moisture damage" but buyers still moved into the property); McClurg v. Deaton, 380 S.C. 563, 575 , 671 S.E.2d 87, 94 (Ct. App. 2008) (stating a meritorious defense "need be only one which is worthy of a hearing or judicial inquiry because it raises a question of | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bowers v. Bowers
green
2 sentences2011As stated above, “[t]he movant in a Rule 60(b) motion has the burden of presenting evidence proving the facts essential to entitle him to relief.” Bowers, 304 S.C. at 67 , 403 S.E.2d at 129 . 2011As stated above, “[t]he movant in a Rule 60(b) motion has the burden of presenting evidence proving the facts essential to entitle him to relief.” Bowers, 304 S.C. at 67 , 403 S.E.2d at 129 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |