65 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2026 22 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burns v. Universal Health Services, Inc.green2 sentences2026See Burns v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 361 S.C. 221, 232 , 603 S.E.2d 605, 611 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The appellate court will reverse the [circuit] court's ruling on a JNOV motion only when there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by an error of law."); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 18 , 640 S.E.2d 486, 495 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When reviewing a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, an appellate court must employ the same standard as the [circuit] court."); Gastineau v. Murphy, 331 S.C. 565, 568 , 503 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1998) ("A motion for JNOV may be granted only 2026See Burns v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 361 S.C. 221, 232 , 603 S.E.2d 605, 611 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The appellate court will reverse the [circuit] court's ruling on a JNOV motion only when there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by an error of law."); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 18 , 640 S.E.2d 486, 495 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When reviewing a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, an appellate court must employ the same standard as the [circuit] court."); Gastineau v. Murphy, 331 S.C. 565, 568 , 503 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1998) ("A motion for JNOV may be granted only | 9 | 11 |
In Re the Care & Treatment of McCrackengreen2 sentences2015See Scoggins v. McClellion, 321 S.C. 264, 267 , 468 S.E.2d 12, 14 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding an issue not raised in a directed verdict motion will not be considered on appeal concerning the denial of the directed verdict); In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 93 , 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) (stating only issues raised in a directed verdict motion can properly be raised in a JNOV motion). 6. 2015See Scoggins v. McClellion, 321 S.C. 264, 267 , 468 S.E.2d 12, 14 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding an issue not raised in a directed verdict motion will not be considered on appeal concerning the denial of the directed verdict); In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 93 , 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) (stating only issues raised in a directed verdict motion can properly be raised in a JNOV motion). 6. | 8 | 11 |
Law v. South Carolina Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2015See Law, 368 S.C. at 434-35 , 629 S.E.2d at 645 (stating this court will reverse the circuit court’s ruling on a directed verdict or JNOV motion only “when there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by an error of law”). 2015See Law, 368 S.C. at 434-35 , 629 S.E.2d at 645 (stating this court will reverse the circuit court’s ruling on a directed verdict or JNOV motion only “when there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by an error of law”). | 5 | 6 |
Curcio Ex Rel. Estate of Turner v. Caterpillar, Inc.green2 sentences2023Duckett v. Payne, 279 S.C. 94, 96 , 302 S.E.2d 342, 343 (1983) ("[T]he appellant carries the burden of convincing this [c]ourt that the [circuit] court erred."); see also Curcio v. Caterpillar, Inc., 355 S.C. 316, 320 , 585 S.E.2d 272, 274 (2003) ("In considering a JNOV, the [circuit court] is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight."); id. ("The jury's verdict must be upheld unless no evidence reasonably supports the jury's findings."); Williams Carpet Contractors, Inc. v. Skelly, 400 S.C. 320, 325 , 734 S.E.2d 177, 180 (Ct. App. 2012) ("When ruling on a JNOV motion, the [cir 2023Duckett v. Payne, 279 S.C. 94, 96 , 302 S.E.2d 342, 343 (1983) ("[T]he appellant carries the burden of convincing this [c]ourt that the [circuit] court erred."); see also Curcio v. Caterpillar, Inc., 355 S.C. 316, 320 , 585 S.E.2d 272, 274 (2003) ("In considering a JNOV, the [circuit court] is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight."); id. ("The jury's verdict must be upheld unless no evidence reasonably supports the jury's findings."); Williams Carpet Contractors, Inc. v. Skelly, 400 S.C. 320, 325 , 734 S.E.2d 177, 180 (Ct. App. 2012) ("When ruling on a JNOV motion, the [cir | 5 | 5 |
Williams Carpet Contractors, Inc. v. Skellygreen2 sentences2025"When ruling on a JNOV motion, the [circuit] court is required to view the evidence and the inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Williams Carpet Contractors, Inc. v. Skelly, 400 S.C. 320, 325 , 734 S.E.2d 177, 180 (Ct. App. 2012). 2025"When ruling on a JNOV motion, the [circuit] court is required to view the evidence and the inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Williams Carpet Contractors, Inc. v. Skelly, 400 S.C. 320, 325 , 734 S.E.2d 177, 180 (Ct. App. 2012). | 4 | 4 |
RFT Management Co. v. Tinsley & Adams L.L.P.green2 sentences2026Co. v. Tinsley & Adams L.L.P., 399 S.C. 322, 331 , 732 S.E.2d 166 , 170–71 (2012) ("[O]nly the grounds raised in the directed verdict motion may properly be reasserted in a JNOV motion."); Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("[I]t is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."). ("The jury's verdict will not be overturned if any evidence exists that sustains the factual findings implicit in its decision.").2,3 II. 2026Co. v. Tinsley & Adams L.L.P., 399 S.C. 322, 331 , 732 S.E.2d 166 , 170–71 (2012) ("[O]nly the grounds raised in the directed verdict motion may properly be reasserted in a JNOV motion."); Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("[I]t is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."). ("The jury's verdict will not be overturned if any evidence exists that sustains the factual findings implicit in its decision.").2,3 II. | 3 | 4 |
Gastineau v. Murphygreen2 sentences2026See Burns v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 361 S.C. 221, 232 , 603 S.E.2d 605, 611 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The appellate court will reverse the [circuit] court's ruling on a JNOV motion only when there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by an error of law."); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 18 , 640 S.E.2d 486, 495 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When reviewing a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, an appellate court must employ the same standard as the [circuit] court."); Gastineau v. Murphy, 331 S.C. 565, 568 , 503 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1998) ("A motion for JNOV may be granted only 2026See Burns v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 361 S.C. 221, 232 , 603 S.E.2d 605, 611 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The appellate court will reverse the [circuit] court's ruling on a JNOV motion only when there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by an error of law."); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 18 , 640 S.E.2d 486, 495 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When reviewing a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, an appellate court must employ the same standard as the [circuit] court."); Gastineau v. Murphy, 331 S.C. 565, 568 , 503 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1998) ("A motion for JNOV may be granted only | 3 | 3 |
Norton v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.green2 sentences2023Co., 350 S.C. 473, 478 , 567 S.E.2d 851, 854 (2002) ("Upon review, a trial [court]'s order granting or denying a new trial will be upheld unless the order is 'wholly unsupported by the evidence, or the conclusion reached was controlled by an error of law.'" (quoting Folkens v. Hunt, 300 S.C. 251, 255 , 387 S.E.2d 265, 267 (1990))); Umhoefer v. Bollinger, 298 S.C. 221, 224 , 379 S.E.2d 296, 297 (Ct. App. 1989) (directing that in reviewing the trial court's denial of a new trial motion, an appellate court "must consider the testimony and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light m 2023Co., 350 S.C. 473, 478 , 567 S.E.2d 851, 854 (2002) ("Upon review, a trial [court]'s order granting or denying a new trial will be upheld unless the order is 'wholly unsupported by the evidence, or the conclusion reached was controlled by an error of law.'" (quoting Folkens v. Hunt, 300 S.C. 251, 255 , 387 S.E.2d 265, 267 (1990))); Umhoefer v. Bollinger, 298 S.C. 221, 224 , 379 S.E.2d 296, 297 (Ct. App. 1989) (directing that in reviewing the trial court's denial of a new trial motion, an appellate court "must consider the testimony and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light m | 3 | 3 |
Folkens Ex Rel. Estate of McLendon v. Huntgreen2 sentences2023Co., 350 S.C. 473, 478 , 567 S.E.2d 851, 854 (2002) ("Upon review, a trial [court]'s order granting or denying a new trial will be upheld unless the order is 'wholly unsupported by the evidence, or the conclusion reached was controlled by an error of law.'" (quoting Folkens v. Hunt, 300 S.C. 251, 255 , 387 S.E.2d 265, 267 (1990))); Umhoefer v. Bollinger, 298 S.C. 221, 224 , 379 S.E.2d 296, 297 (Ct. App. 1989) (directing that in reviewing the trial court's denial of a new trial motion, an appellate court "must consider the testimony and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light m 2023Co., 350 S.C. 473, 478 , 567 S.E.2d 851, 854 (2002) ("Upon review, a trial [court]'s order granting or denying a new trial will be upheld unless the order is 'wholly unsupported by the evidence, or the conclusion reached was controlled by an error of law.'" (quoting Folkens v. Hunt, 300 S.C. 251, 255 , 387 S.E.2d 265, 267 (1990))); Umhoefer v. Bollinger, 298 S.C. 221, 224 , 379 S.E.2d 296, 297 (Ct. App. 1989) (directing that in reviewing the trial court's denial of a new trial motion, an appellate court "must consider the testimony and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light m | 3 | 3 |
Wright v. Craftgreen2 sentences2026See Burns v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 361 S.C. 221, 232 , 603 S.E.2d 605, 611 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The appellate court will reverse the [circuit] court's ruling on a JNOV motion only when there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by an error of law."); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 18 , 640 S.E.2d 486, 495 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When reviewing a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, an appellate court must employ the same standard as the [circuit] court."); Gastineau v. Murphy, 331 S.C. 565, 568 , 503 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1998) ("A motion for JNOV may be granted only 2026See Burns v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 361 S.C. 221, 232 , 603 S.E.2d 605, 611 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The appellate court will reverse the [circuit] court's ruling on a JNOV motion only when there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by an error of law."); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 18 , 640 S.E.2d 486, 495 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When reviewing a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, an appellate court must employ the same standard as the [circuit] court."); Gastineau v. Murphy, 331 S.C. 565, 568 , 503 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1998) ("A motion for JNOV may be granted only | 2 | 2 |
Duckett v. Paynegreen2 sentences2023Duckett v. Payne, 279 S.C. 94, 96 , 302 S.E.2d 342, 343 (1983) ("[T]he appellant carries the burden of convincing this [c]ourt that the [circuit] court erred."); see also Curcio v. Caterpillar, Inc., 355 S.C. 316, 320 , 585 S.E.2d 272, 274 (2003) ("In considering a JNOV, the [circuit court] is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight."); id. ("The jury's verdict must be upheld unless no evidence reasonably supports the jury's findings."); Williams Carpet Contractors, Inc. v. Skelly, 400 S.C. 320, 325 , 734 S.E.2d 177, 180 (Ct. App. 2012) ("When ruling on a JNOV motion, the [cir 2023Duckett v. Payne, 279 S.C. 94, 96 , 302 S.E.2d 342, 343 (1983) ("[T]he appellant carries the burden of convincing this [c]ourt that the [circuit] court erred."); see also Curcio v. Caterpillar, Inc., 355 S.C. 316, 320 , 585 S.E.2d 272, 274 (2003) ("In considering a JNOV, the [circuit court] is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight."); id. ("The jury's verdict must be upheld unless no evidence reasonably supports the jury's findings."); Williams Carpet Contractors, Inc. v. Skelly, 400 S.C. 320, 325 , 734 S.E.2d 177, 180 (Ct. App. 2012) ("When ruling on a JNOV motion, the [cir | 2 | 2 |
Small v. Pioneer MacHinery, Inc.green2 sentences2023Duckett v. Payne, 279 S.C. 94, 96 , 302 S.E.2d 342, 343 (1983) ("[T]he appellant carries the burden of convincing this [c]ourt that the [circuit] court erred."); see also Curcio v. Caterpillar, Inc., 355 S.C. 316, 320 , 585 S.E.2d 272, 274 (2003) ("In considering a JNOV, the [circuit court] is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight."); id. ("The jury's verdict must be upheld unless no evidence reasonably supports the jury's findings."); Williams Carpet Contractors, Inc. v. Skelly, 400 S.C. 320, 325 , 734 S.E.2d 177, 180 (Ct. App. 2012) ("When ruling on a JNOV motion, the [cir 2023Duckett v. Payne, 279 S.C. 94, 96 , 302 S.E.2d 342, 343 (1983) ("[T]he appellant carries the burden of convincing this [c]ourt that the [circuit] court erred."); see also Curcio v. Caterpillar, Inc., 355 S.C. 316, 320 , 585 S.E.2d 272, 274 (2003) ("In considering a JNOV, the [circuit court] is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight."); id. ("The jury's verdict must be upheld unless no evidence reasonably supports the jury's findings."); Williams Carpet Contractors, Inc. v. Skelly, 400 S.C. 320, 325 , 734 S.E.2d 177, 180 (Ct. App. 2012) ("When ruling on a JNOV motion, the [cir | 2 | 2 |
Umhoefer v. Bollingergreen2 sentences2023Co., 350 S.C. 473, 478 , 567 S.E.2d 851, 854 (2002) ("Upon review, a trial [court]'s order granting or denying a new trial will be upheld unless the order is 'wholly unsupported by the evidence, or the conclusion reached was controlled by an error of law.'" (quoting Folkens v. Hunt, 300 S.C. 251, 255 , 387 S.E.2d 265, 267 (1990))); Umhoefer v. Bollinger, 298 S.C. 221, 224 , 379 S.E.2d 296, 297 (Ct. App. 1989) (directing that in reviewing the trial court's denial of a new trial motion, an appellate court "must consider the testimony and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light m 2023Co., 350 S.C. 473, 478 , 567 S.E.2d 851, 854 (2002) ("Upon review, a trial [court]'s order granting or denying a new trial will be upheld unless the order is 'wholly unsupported by the evidence, or the conclusion reached was controlled by an error of law.'" (quoting Folkens v. Hunt, 300 S.C. 251, 255 , 387 S.E.2d 265, 267 (1990))); Umhoefer v. Bollinger, 298 S.C. 221, 224 , 379 S.E.2d 296, 297 (Ct. App. 1989) (directing that in reviewing the trial court's denial of a new trial motion, an appellate court "must consider the testimony and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light m | 2 | 2 |
Chaney v. Burgessgreen2 sentences2023Duckett v. Payne, 279 S.C. 94, 96 , 302 S.E.2d 342, 343 (1983) ("[T]he appellant carries the burden of convincing this [c]ourt that the [circuit] court erred."); see also Curcio v. Caterpillar, Inc., 355 S.C. 316, 320 , 585 S.E.2d 272, 274 (2003) ("In considering a JNOV, the [circuit court] is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight."); id. ("The jury's verdict must be upheld unless no evidence reasonably supports the jury's findings."); Williams Carpet Contractors, Inc. v. Skelly, 400 S.C. 320, 325 , 734 S.E.2d 177, 180 (Ct. App. 2012) ("When ruling on a JNOV motion, the [cir 2023Duckett v. Payne, 279 S.C. 94, 96 , 302 S.E.2d 342, 343 (1983) ("[T]he appellant carries the burden of convincing this [c]ourt that the [circuit] court erred."); see also Curcio v. Caterpillar, Inc., 355 S.C. 316, 320 , 585 S.E.2d 272, 274 (2003) ("In considering a JNOV, the [circuit court] is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight."); id. ("The jury's verdict must be upheld unless no evidence reasonably supports the jury's findings."); Williams Carpet Contractors, Inc. v. Skelly, 400 S.C. 320, 325 , 734 S.E.2d 177, 180 (Ct. App. 2012) ("When ruling on a JNOV motion, the [cir | 2 | 2 |
Estate of Mims v. S.C. Dep't of Disabilities & Special Needsgreen2 sentences2023Dep't of Disabilities & Special Needs, 422 S.C. 388, 403 , 811 S.E.2d 807, 815 (Ct. App. 2018) (holding multiple inferences that could be drawn from the evidence precluded summary judgment and required a jury to determine the question of causation). 2023Dep't of Disabilities & Special Needs, 422 S.C. 388, 403 , 811 S.E.2d 807, 815 (Ct. App. 2018) (holding multiple inferences that could be drawn from the evidence precluded summary judgment and required a jury to determine the question of causation). | 2 | 2 |
Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp.green2 sentences2014See Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp., 387 S.C. 22, 60 , 691 S.E.2d 135, 155 (2010) (holding when an issue is not raised as a ground for a directed verdict, raising the issue in a JNOV motion will not preserve it for appellate review); see also In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92-93 , 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) (stating only issues raised at directed verdict can properly be raised in a JNOV). 2014See Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp., 387 S.C. 22, 60 , 691 S.E.2d 135, 155 (2010) (holding when an issue is not raised as a ground for a directed verdict, raising the issue in a JNOV motion will not preserve it for appellate review); see also In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92-93 , 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) (stating only issues raised at directed verdict can properly be raised in a JNOV). | 2 | 2 |
Scoggins v. McClelliongreen2 sentences2015See Scoggins v. McClellion, 321 S.C. 264, 267 , 468 S.E.2d 12, 14 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding an issue not raised in a directed verdict motion will not be considered on appeal concerning the denial of the directed verdict); In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 93 , 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) (stating only issues raised in a directed verdict motion can properly be raised in a JNOV motion). 6. 2015See Scoggins v. McClellion, 321 S.C. 264, 267 , 468 S.E.2d 12, 14 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding an issue not raised in a directed verdict motion will not be considered on appeal concerning the denial of the directed verdict); In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 93 , 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) (stating only issues raised in a directed verdict motion can properly be raised in a JNOV motion). 6. | 2 | 2 |
Welch v. Epsteingreen2 sentences2016“We will not reverse the circuit court’s ruling on a JNOV motion unless there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by an error of law.” Id. (citing Law v. S.C. 2004See Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279 , 536 S.E.2d 408 (Ct.App.2000) (finding trial court must deny JNOV motion when evidence yields more than one inference or its inferences are in doubt). b. | 1 | 3 |
State Ex Rel. Wilson v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2022Wilson v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharms., Inc., 414 S.C. 33, 67 , 777 S.E.2d 176, 194 (2015) (finding ground not asserted in the directed verdict motion but raised for the first time in a JNOV motion is not preserved for appellate review). 2022Wilson v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharms., Inc., 414 S.C. 33, 67 , 777 S.E.2d 176, 194 (2015) (finding ground not asserted in the directed verdict motion but raised for the first time in a JNOV motion is not preserved for appellate review). | 1 | 2 |
Elam v. South Carolina Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2018Dep't of Transp. , 361 S.C. 9 , 27-28, 602 S.E.2d 772 , 782 (2004). 2018Dep't of Transp. , 361 S.C. 9 , 27-28, 602 S.E.2d 772 , 782 (2004). | 1 | 2 |
Clark v. SC DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETYgreen2 sentences2015Safety, 362 S.C. 377 , 382-83, 608 S.E.2d 573 , 576 (2005) (noting that an appellate court will reverse the trial court’s ruling on a directed verdict motion or JNOV motion only where there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by error of law); Waring v. Johnson, 341 S.C. 248, 256 , 533 S.E.2d 906, 910 (Ct.App.2000) (“The grant or denial of a motion for a new trial nisi rests within the discretion of the trial judge and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless his findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are control 2015Safety, 362 S.C. 377 , 382-83, 608 S.E.2d 573 , 576 (2005) (noting that an appellate court will reverse the trial court’s ruling on a directed verdict motion or JNOV motion only where there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by error of law); Waring v. Johnson, 341 S.C. 248, 256 , 533 S.E.2d 906, 910 (Ct.App.2000) (“The grant or denial of a motion for a new trial nisi rests within the discretion of the trial judge and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless his findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are control | 1 | 2 |
Jinks Ex Rel. Estate of Jinks v. Richland Countygreen2 sentences2014As to whether the trial court erred by denying Ford's directed verdict and JNOV motions based on the claim that the truck was not in essentially the same condition as when it left Ford's control: Hurd v. Williamsburg Cnty., 363 S.C. 421, 426 , 611 S.E.2d 488, 491 (2005) ("When reviewing a ruling on a motion for directed verdict, we must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."); id. ("If the evidence as a whole is susceptible of more than one reasonable inference, the trial judge must submit the case to the jury."); Jinks v. Richland 2014As to whether the trial court erred by denying Ford's directed verdict and JNOV motions based on the claim that the truck was not in essentially the same condition as when it left Ford's control: Hurd v. Williamsburg Cnty., 363 S.C. 421, 426 , 611 S.E.2d 488, 491 (2005) ("When reviewing a ruling on a motion for directed verdict, we must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."); id. ("If the evidence as a whole is susceptible of more than one reasonable inference, the trial judge must submit the case to the jury."); Jinks v. Richland | 1 | 2 |
Sabb v. South Carolina State Universitygreen2 sentences2005Sabb v. South Carolina State Univ. , 350 S.C. 416 , 427, 567 S.E.2d 231, 236 (2002). 2005Sabb v. South Carolina State Univ. , 350 S.C. 416 , 427, 567 S.E.2d 231, 236 (2002). | 1 | 2 |
Trivelas v. South Carolina Dept. of Transportationgreen2 sentences2026Dep't of Transp., 357 S.C. 545, 551 , 593 S.E.2d 504, 507 (Ct. App. 2004) ("South Carolina's thirteenth juror doctrine allows the circuit court . . . to grant a new trial absolute when the [court] finds the evidence does not justify the verdict."); Vinson v. Hartley, 324 S.C. 389, 404 , 477 S.E.2d 715 , 723 (Ct. App. 1996) ("The [circuit court] must grant a new trial absolute if the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to shock the conscience of the court and clearly indicates the figure reached was the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, partiality, corruption[,] 2026Dep't of Transp., 357 S.C. 545, 551 , 593 S.E.2d 504, 507 (Ct. App. 2004) ("South Carolina's thirteenth juror doctrine allows the circuit court . . . to grant a new trial absolute when the [court] finds the evidence does not justify the verdict."); Vinson v. Hartley, 324 S.C. 389, 404 , 477 S.E.2d 715 , 723 (Ct. App. 1996) ("The [circuit court] must grant a new trial absolute if the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to shock the conscience of the court and clearly indicates the figure reached was the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, partiality, corruption[,] | 1 | 1 |
Becker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2026See Burns v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 361 S.C. 221, 232 , 603 S.E.2d 605, 611 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The appellate court will reverse the [circuit] court's ruling on a JNOV motion only when there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by an error of law."); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 18 , 640 S.E.2d 486, 495 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When reviewing a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, an appellate court must employ the same standard as the [circuit] court."); Gastineau v. Murphy, 331 S.C. 565, 568 , 503 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1998) ("A motion for JNOV may be granted only 2026See Burns v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 361 S.C. 221, 232 , 603 S.E.2d 605, 611 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The appellate court will reverse the [circuit] court's ruling on a JNOV motion only when there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by an error of law."); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 18 , 640 S.E.2d 486, 495 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When reviewing a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, an appellate court must employ the same standard as the [circuit] court."); Gastineau v. Murphy, 331 S.C. 565, 568 , 503 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1998) ("A motion for JNOV may be granted only | 1 | 1 |
Bloom v. Ravoiragreen2 sentences2026Dep't of Transp., 357 S.C. 545, 551 , 593 S.E.2d 504, 507 (Ct. App. 2004) ("South Carolina's thirteenth juror doctrine allows the circuit court . . . to grant a new trial absolute when the [court] finds the evidence does not justify the verdict."); Vinson v. Hartley, 324 S.C. 389, 404 , 477 S.E.2d 715 , 723 (Ct. App. 1996) ("The [circuit court] must grant a new trial absolute if the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to shock the conscience of the court and clearly indicates the figure reached was the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, partiality, corruption[,] 2026Dep't of Transp., 357 S.C. 545, 551 , 593 S.E.2d 504, 507 (Ct. App. 2004) ("South Carolina's thirteenth juror doctrine allows the circuit court . . . to grant a new trial absolute when the [court] finds the evidence does not justify the verdict."); Vinson v. Hartley, 324 S.C. 389, 404 , 477 S.E.2d 715 , 723 (Ct. App. 1996) ("The [circuit court] must grant a new trial absolute if the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to shock the conscience of the court and clearly indicates the figure reached was the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, partiality, corruption[,] | 1 | 1 |
Vinson v. Hartleygreen2 sentences2026Dep't of Transp., 357 S.C. 545, 551 , 593 S.E.2d 504, 507 (Ct. App. 2004) ("South Carolina's thirteenth juror doctrine allows the circuit court . . . to grant a new trial absolute when the [court] finds the evidence does not justify the verdict."); Vinson v. Hartley, 324 S.C. 389, 404 , 477 S.E.2d 715 , 723 (Ct. App. 1996) ("The [circuit court] must grant a new trial absolute if the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to shock the conscience of the court and clearly indicates the figure reached was the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, partiality, corruption[,] 2026Dep't of Transp., 357 S.C. 545, 551 , 593 S.E.2d 504, 507 (Ct. App. 2004) ("South Carolina's thirteenth juror doctrine allows the circuit court . . . to grant a new trial absolute when the [court] finds the evidence does not justify the verdict."); Vinson v. Hartley, 324 S.C. 389, 404 , 477 S.E.2d 715 , 723 (Ct. App. 1996) ("The [circuit court] must grant a new trial absolute if the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to shock the conscience of the court and clearly indicates the figure reached was the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, partiality, corruption[,] | 1 | 1 |
Wilder Corp. v. Wilkegreen2 sentences2026Co. v. Tinsley & Adams L.L.P., 399 S.C. 322, 331 , 732 S.E.2d 166 , 170–71 (2012) ("[O]nly the grounds raised in the directed verdict motion may properly be reasserted in a JNOV motion."); Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("[I]t is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."). ("The jury's verdict will not be overturned if any evidence exists that sustains the factual findings implicit in its decision.").2,3 II. 2026Co. v. Tinsley & Adams L.L.P., 399 S.C. 322, 331 , 732 S.E.2d 166 , 170–71 (2012) ("[O]nly the grounds raised in the directed verdict motion may properly be reasserted in a JNOV motion."); Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("[I]t is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."). ("The jury's verdict will not be overturned if any evidence exists that sustains the factual findings implicit in its decision.").2,3 II. | 1 | 1 |
Historic Charleston Holdings, LLC v. Mallongreen2 sentences2025"The award of prejudgment interest will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court committed an abuse of discretion." Historic Charleston Holdings, LLC v. Mallon, 381 S.C. 417, 435 , 673 S.E.2d 448, 457-58 (2009). 2025"The award of prejudgment interest will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court committed an abuse of discretion." Historic Charleston Holdings, LLC v. Mallon, 381 S.C. 417, 435 , 673 S.E.2d 448, 457-58 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
Herron v. CENTURY BMWgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Morales, 439 S.C. 600 , 609, 889 S.E.2d 551 , 556 (2023) (noting that appellate courts are to be "mindful of the need to approach issue preservation rules with a practical eye and not in a rigid, hyper-technical manner" and thus, should not apply preservation rules in a manner that "elevat[es] form over substance to trap trial lawyers so as to prevent the appeal of a legitimate issue" (quoting Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 470 , 719 S.E.2d 640, 644 (2011))). 2025See State v. Morales, 439 S.C. 600 , 609, 889 S.E.2d 551 , 556 (2023) (noting that appellate courts are to be "mindful of the need to approach issue preservation rules with a practical eye and not in a rigid, hyper-technical manner" and thus, should not apply preservation rules in a manner that "elevat[es] form over substance to trap trial lawyers so as to prevent the appeal of a legitimate issue" (quoting Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 470 , 719 S.E.2d 640, 644 (2011))). | 1 | 1 |
| Reiland v. Southland Equipment Service, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Webb v. CSX Transportation, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ardis v. Coxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brinkley v. South Carolina Department of Correctionsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Strange v. DEPT. OF HWYS. & PUBLIC TRANSP.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Commandergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ulmer v. Ulmergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd. Partnershipgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bass v. South Carolina Department of Social Servicesgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Gause v. Smithers green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Hallums v. Hallums green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Kunst v. Loree green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Mishoe v. QHG of Lake City, Inc. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re the Care & Treatment of Matthews green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Gilliland v. Doe green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| McCall v. IKON green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Wilkinson v. Palmetto State Transportation Co. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Smith v. Haynsworth green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution, Inc. green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Bailey v. Segars green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Kinard v. Crosby green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Graham v. Whitaker green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.