60 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gilliland v. Elmwood Propertiesgreen2 sentences2024See Rodarte v. Univ. of S.C., 419 S.C. 592, 603 , 799 S.E.2d 912, 917 (2017) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence . . . to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument." (quoting Gilliland v. Elmwood Props., 301 S.C. 295, 302 , 391 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1990))). 2024See Rodarte v. Univ. of S.C., 419 S.C. 592, 603 , 799 S.E.2d 912, 917 (2017) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence . . . to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument." (quoting Gilliland v. Elmwood Props., 301 S.C. 295, 302 , 391 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1990))). | 7 | 9 |
In Re Estate of Holdengreen2 sentences2018See Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v. City of Columbia, 409 S.C. 568 , 577–78, 762 S.E.2d 696, 701 (2014) ("When a writing, upon its face, imports to be a complete expression of the whole agreement, and contains thereon all that is necessary to constitute a contract, it is presumed that the parties have introduced into it every material item and term, and parol evidence is not admissible to add another term to the agreement, although the writing contains nothing on the particular item to which the parol evidence is directed."); In re Estate of Holden, 343 S.C. 267, 276 , 539 S.E.2d 703, 708 2018See Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v. City of Columbia, 409 S.C. 568 , 577–78, 762 S.E.2d 696, 701 (2014) ("When a writing, upon its face, imports to be a complete expression of the whole agreement, and contains thereon all that is necessary to constitute a contract, it is presumed that the parties have introduced into it every material item and term, and parol evidence is not admissible to add another term to the agreement, although the writing contains nothing on the particular item to which the parol evidence is directed."); In re Estate of Holden, 343 S.C. 267, 276 , 539 S.E.2d 703, 708 | 6 | 7 |
Redwend Ltd. Partnership v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2012P'ship v. Edwards, 354 S.C. 459, 471 , 581 S.E.2d 496, 502 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument."); Davis v. KB Home of S.C., Inc., 394 S.C. 116, 127-28 , 713 S.E.2d 799, 805 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding the parol evidence rule applies when the written instrument contains a merger or integration clause); id. at 128 , 713 S.E.2d at 805 ("A merger clause 2012P'ship v. Edwards, 354 S.C. 459, 471 , 581 S.E.2d 496, 502 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument."); Davis v. KB Home of S.C., Inc., 394 S.C. 116, 127-28 , 713 S.E.2d 799, 805 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding the parol evidence rule applies when the written instrument contains a merger or integration clause); id. at 128 , 713 S.E.2d at 805 ("A merger clause | 6 | 6 |
Slack v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2025"A general non-reliance clause, just as a merger clause, does not prevent one from proceeding on tort theories of negligent misrepresentation and fraud." Slack v. James, 364 S.C. 609, 618 , 614 S.E.2d 636, 641 (2005) (emphasis added). "[M]ost courts hold that the parol evidence rule only bars a complaining party from introducing evidence of pre- contractual representations in contract actions, not tort actions." Glenn D. 2025"A general non-reliance clause, just as a merger clause, does not prevent one from proceeding on tort theories of negligent misrepresentation and fraud." Slack v. James, 364 S.C. 609, 618 , 614 S.E.2d 636, 641 (2005) (emphasis added). "[M]ost courts hold that the parol evidence rule only bars a complaining party from introducing evidence of pre- contractual representations in contract actions, not tort actions." Glenn D. | 4 | 4 |
McGill v. Mooregreen2 sentences2025Co., 392 S.C. 506, 525 , 709 S.E.2d 85, 95 (Ct. App. 2011) ("Extrinsic evidence may not be used to create an ambiguity in an otherwise unambiguous policy."); McGill v. Moore, 381 S.C. 179, 188 , 672 S.E.2d 571, 576 (2009) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary or explain the written instrument."). 2025Co., 392 S.C. 506, 525 , 709 S.E.2d 85, 95 (Ct. App. 2011) ("Extrinsic evidence may not be used to create an ambiguity in an otherwise unambiguous policy."); McGill v. Moore, 381 S.C. 179, 188 , 672 S.E.2d 571, 576 (2009) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary or explain the written instrument."). | 3 | 3 |
Taylor Ex Rel. Taylor v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2008Taylor by Taylor v. Taylor , 291 S.C. 261, 264 , 353 S.E.2d 156, 158 (Ct. App. 1987). 1988See Taylor v. Taylor, 291 S. C. 261, 264, 353 S. E. (2d) 156, 158 (Ct. App. 1987) (“The parol evidence rule excludes evidence giving a perfectly clear agreement a different meaning or effect from that indicated by the plain language.”). | 2 | 3 |
Stevens & Wilkinson of South Carolina, Inc. v. City of Columbiagreen2 sentences2018See Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v. City of Columbia, 409 S.C. 568 , 577–78, 762 S.E.2d 696, 701 (2014) ("When a writing, upon its face, imports to be a complete expression of the whole agreement, and contains thereon all that is necessary to constitute a contract, it is presumed that the parties have introduced into it every material item and term, and parol evidence is not admissible to add another term to the agreement, although the writing contains nothing on the particular item to which the parol evidence is directed."); In re Estate of Holden, 343 S.C. 267, 276 , 539 S.E.2d 703, 708 2018See Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v. City of Columbia, 409 S.C. 568 , 577–78, 762 S.E.2d 696, 701 (2014) ("When a writing, upon its face, imports to be a complete expression of the whole agreement, and contains thereon all that is necessary to constitute a contract, it is presumed that the parties have introduced into it every material item and term, and parol evidence is not admissible to add another term to the agreement, although the writing contains nothing on the particular item to which the parol evidence is directed."); In re Estate of Holden, 343 S.C. 267, 276 , 539 S.E.2d 703, 708 | 2 | 2 |
Adams v. Marchbanksgreen2 sentences2015Adams v. Marchbanks, 253 S.C. 280, 282 , 170 S.E.2d 214, 215 (1969) (citations omitted). 2015Adams v. Marchbanks, 253 S.C. 280, 282 , 170 S.E.2d 214, 215 (1969) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Levy v. Outdoor Resorts of South Carolina, Inc.green2 sentences2004Levy v. Outdoor Resorts , 304 S.C. 427, 432 , 405 S.E.2d 387, 390 (1991). 2004Levy v. Outdoor Resorts , 304 S.C. 427, 432 , 405 S.E.2d 387, 390 (1991). | 2 | 2 |
Gladden v. Keistlergreen2 sentences1930See Gladden v. Keistler, 141 S. C., 524, 140 S. E., 161 . 1930See Gladden v. Keistler, 141 S. C., 524, 140 S. E., 161 , where the rule is fully discussed. | 2 | 2 |
Crafton v. Browngreen2 sentences2003In re Estate of Holden, 343 S.C. 267, 275-76 , 539 S.E.2d 703 , 708 (2000) ("Where a written instrument is unambiguous, parol evidence is inadmissible to ascertain the true intent and meaning of the parties."); Crafton v. Brown, 346 S.C. 347, 351 , 550 S.E.2d 904, 906 (Ct. App. 2001) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument.") (footnote omitted). 2003In re Estate of Holden, 343 S.C. 267, 275-76 , 539 S.E.2d 703 , 708 (2000) ("Where a written instrument is unambiguous, parol evidence is inadmissible to ascertain the true intent and meaning of the parties."); Crafton v. Brown, 346 S.C. 347, 351 , 550 S.E.2d 904, 906 (Ct. App. 2001) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument.") (footnote omitted). | 1 | 3 |
Bradley v. Hullandergreen2 sentences2008However, [it] is axiomatic that there exists a well established exception to the parol evidence rule which allows extrinsic evidence by the party attacking an instrument on the ground of fraud. Redwend , 354 S.C. at 471 , 581 S.E.2d at 503 (citing Bradley v. Hullander , 272 S.C. 6 , 249 S.E.2d 486 (1978) and Allen-Parker Co. v. Lollis , 257 S.C. 266 , 185 S.E.2d 739 (1971)). 2008However, [it] is axiomatic that there exists a well established exception to the parol evidence rule which allows extrinsic evidence by the party attacking an instrument on the ground of fraud. Redwend , 354 S.C. at 471 , 581 S.E.2d at 503 (citing Bradley v. Hullander , 272 S.C. 6 , 249 S.E.2d 486 (1978) and Allen-Parker Co. v. Lollis , 257 S.C. 266 , 185 S.E.2d 739 (1971)). | 1 | 3 |
Iseman v. Hobbsgreen2 sentences2017“The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument.” Gilliland v. Elmwood Props., 301 S.C. 295, 302 , 391 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1990) (citing Iseman v. Hobbs, 290 S.C. 482, 483 , 351 S.E.2d 351, 352 (Ct. App. 1986)). “ ‘Where an agreement is clear on its face and unambiguous, the court’s only function is to interpret its lawful meaning and the intent of the parties as found within the 2017“The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument.” Gilliland v. Elmwood Props., 301 S.C. 295, 302 , 391 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1990) (citing Iseman v. Hobbs, 290 S.C. 482, 483 , 351 S.E.2d 351, 352 (Ct. App. 1986)). “ ‘Where an agreement is clear on its face and unambiguous, the court’s only function is to interpret its lawful meaning and the intent of the parties as found within the | 1 | 2 |
Adamson v. Marianne Fabrics, Inc.green2 sentences2012See Adamson v. Marianne Fabrics, Inc. , 301 S.C. 204, 207 , 391 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1990) (holding that although the terms of a completely integrated agreement cannot be varied or contradicted by parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements not included in the writing, the rule does not apply to subsequent modifications). 2012See Adamson v. Marianne Fabrics, Inc. , 301 S.C. 204, 207 , 391 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1990) (holding that although the terms of a completely integrated agreement cannot be varied or contradicted by parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements not included in the writing, the rule does not apply to subsequent modifications). | 1 | 2 |
Rempel v. Nationwide Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2003Co., 471 Pa. 404 , 370 A.2d 366, 370 (1977). 2003Co., 471 Pa. 404 , 370 A.2d 366, 370 (1977). | 1 | 2 |
Beaufort County School District v. United National Insurancegreen2 sentences2025Co., 392 S.C. 506, 525 , 709 S.E.2d 85, 95 (Ct. App. 2011) ("Extrinsic evidence may not be used to create an ambiguity in an otherwise unambiguous policy."); McGill v. Moore, 381 S.C. 179, 188 , 672 S.E.2d 571, 576 (2009) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary or explain the written instrument."). 2025Co., 392 S.C. 506, 525 , 709 S.E.2d 85, 95 (Ct. App. 2011) ("Extrinsic evidence may not be used to create an ambiguity in an otherwise unambiguous policy."); McGill v. Moore, 381 S.C. 179, 188 , 672 S.E.2d 571, 576 (2009) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary or explain the written instrument."). | 1 | 1 |
Rodarte v. University of South Carolinagreen2 sentences2024See Rodarte v. Univ. of S.C., 419 S.C. 592, 603 , 799 S.E.2d 912, 917 (2017) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence . . . to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument." (quoting Gilliland v. Elmwood Props., 301 S.C. 295, 302 , 391 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1990))). 2024See Rodarte v. Univ. of S.C., 419 S.C. 592, 603 , 799 S.E.2d 912, 917 (2017) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence . . . to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument." (quoting Gilliland v. Elmwood Props., 301 S.C. 295, 302 , 391 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1990))). | 1 | 1 |
Bluffton Towne Center, LLC v. Gilleland-Princegreen2 sentences2019"The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary[,] or explain the written instrument." Bluffton Towne Ctr., LLC, 412 S.C. at 571 , 772 S.E.2d at 891 (alteration by court) (quoting McGill v. Moore, 381 S.C. 179, 188 , 672 S.E.2d 571, 576 (2009)). 2019"The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary[,] or explain the written instrument." Bluffton Towne Ctr., LLC, 412 S.C. at 571 , 772 S.E.2d at 891 (alteration by court) (quoting McGill v. Moore, 381 S.C. 179, 188 , 672 S.E.2d 571, 576 (2009)). | 1 | 1 |
Jordan v. Security Group, Inc.green2 sentences2018Grp., Inc. , 311 S.C. 227 , 230, 428 S.E.2d 705 , 707 (1993) ("Where the language of a contract is plain and capable of legal construction, that language alone determines the instrument's force and effect."); Gilliland v. Elmwood Props. , 301 S.C. 295 , 302, 391 S.E.2d 577 , 581 (1990) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic **204 evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary or explain the written instrument."); see also 11 Williston on Contracts 2018Grp., Inc. , 311 S.C. 227 , 230, 428 S.E.2d 705 , 707 (1993) ("Where the language of a contract is plain and capable of legal construction, that language alone determines the instrument's force and effect."); Gilliland v. Elmwood Props. , 301 S.C. 295 , 302, 391 S.E.2d 577 , 581 (1990) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic **204 evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary or explain the written instrument."); see also 11 Williston on Contracts | 1 | 1 |
Spoone v. Newsome Chevrolet-Buickgreen2 sentences2017Cf. Spoone v. Newsome Chevrolet-Buick, 309 S.C. 432, 434 , 424 S.E.2d 489, 490 (1992) (noting that “equitable estoppel could not be invoked to nullify a mandatory statutory restriction” and “equity will not prevail over a positive enactment of the legislature” (citations omitted)). 2017Cf. Spoone v. Newsome Chevrolet-Buick, 309 S.C. 432, 434 , 424 S.E.2d 489, 490 (1992) (noting that “equitable estoppel could not be invoked to nullify a mandatory statutory restriction” and “equity will not prevail over a positive enactment of the legislature” (citations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Hickman v. Hickmangreen2 sentences2017See Hickman v. Hickman , 301 S.C. 455 , 456, 392 S.E.2d 481 , 482 (Ct. App. 1990) ("A party cannot use Rule 59(e) [, SCRCP] to present to the court an issue the **127 party could have raised prior to judgment but did not."). 2017See Hickman v. Hickman , 301 S.C. 455 , 456, 392 S.E.2d 481 , 482 (Ct. App. 1990) ("A party cannot use Rule 59(e) [, SCRCP] to present to the court an issue the **127 party could have raised prior to judgment but did not."). | 1 | 1 |
Miles v. Milesgreen2 sentences2017“The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument.” Gilliland v. Elmwood Props., 301 S.C. 295, 302 , 391 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1990) (citing Iseman v. Hobbs, 290 S.C. 482, 483 , 351 S.E.2d 351, 352 (Ct. App. 1986)). “ ‘Where an agreement is clear on its face and unambiguous, the court’s only function is to interpret its lawful meaning and the intent of the parties as found within the 2017“The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument.” Gilliland v. Elmwood Props., 301 S.C. 295, 302 , 391 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1990) (citing Iseman v. Hobbs, 290 S.C. 482, 483 , 351 S.E.2d 351, 352 (Ct. App. 1986)). “ ‘Where an agreement is clear on its face and unambiguous, the court’s only function is to interpret its lawful meaning and the intent of the parties as found within the | 1 | 1 |
Laser Supply and Services, Inc. v. Orchard Park Associatesgreen2 sentences2017Rescue Prods., Inc. v. Richardson, 411 S.C. 371, 378 , 769 S.E.2d 237, 241 (2015) (emphasis added) (quoting Laser Supply & Servs., Inc. v. Orchard Park Assocs., 382 S.C. 326, 334 , 676 S.E.2d 139, 143-44 (Ct. App. 2009)). 2017Rescue Prods., Inc. v. Richardson, 411 S.C. 371, 378 , 769 S.E.2d 237, 241 (2015) (emphasis added) (quoting Laser Supply & Servs., Inc. v. Orchard Park Assocs., 382 S.C. 326, 334 , 676 S.E.2d 139, 143-44 (Ct. App. 2009)). | 1 | 1 |
North American Rescue Products, Inc. v. Richardsongreen2 sentences2017Rescue Prods., Inc. v. Richardson, 411 S.C. 371, 378 , 769 S.E.2d 237, 241 (2015) (emphasis added) (quoting Laser Supply & Servs., Inc. v. Orchard Park Assocs., 382 S.C. 326, 334 , 676 S.E.2d 139, 143-44 (Ct. App. 2009)). 2017Rescue Prods., Inc. v. Richardson, 411 S.C. 371, 378 , 769 S.E.2d 237, 241 (2015) (emphasis added) (quoting Laser Supply & Servs., Inc. v. Orchard Park Assocs., 382 S.C. 326, 334 , 676 S.E.2d 139, 143-44 (Ct. App. 2009)). | 1 | 1 |
Southern Realty & Construction Co. v. Bryangreen1 sentence2013The court explained, “Both the parol evidence rule and the doctrine of merger are rules governing the construction of written documents.” Id. at 308, 350 S.E.2d at 197 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. KB HOME OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.green2 sentences2012P'ship v. Edwards, 354 S.C. 459, 471 , 581 S.E.2d 496, 502 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument."); Davis v. KB Home of S.C., Inc., 394 S.C. 116, 127-28 , 713 S.E.2d 799, 805 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding the parol evidence rule applies when the written instrument contains a merger or integration clause); id. at 128 , 713 S.E.2d at 805 ("A merger clause 2012P'ship v. Edwards, 354 S.C. 459, 471 , 581 S.E.2d 496, 502 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument."); Davis v. KB Home of S.C., Inc., 394 S.C. 116, 127-28 , 713 S.E.2d 799, 805 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding the parol evidence rule applies when the written instrument contains a merger or integration clause); id. at 128 , 713 S.E.2d at 805 ("A merger clause | 1 | 1 |
| Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
United States Leasing Corp. v. Janicare, Inc.green2 sentences2011U.S. Leasing Corp. v. Janicare, Inc., 294 S.C. 312, 318 , 364 S.E.2d 202, 205 (Ct.App.1988). 2011U.S. Leasing Corp. v. Janicare, Inc., 294 S.C. 312, 318 , 364 S.E.2d 202, 205 (Ct.App.1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Wilson v. Landstromgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bradley v. Family Ford Sales, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Florentine Corp., Inc. v. Peda I, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Friarsgate, Inc. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Koontz v. Thomasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bernard H. Pinken v. Dan R. Frankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Moss v. Porter Brothers, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Fox v. Southern Appliances, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Chapel Hill Spa Health Club, Inc. v. Goodmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ray v. South Carolina National Bank, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bradley v. Hullandergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dill v. Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co.green | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allen-Parker Co. v. Lollis
green
2 sentences2008However, [it] is axiomatic that there exists a well established exception to the parol evidence rule which allows extrinsic evidence by the party attacking an instrument on the ground of fraud. Redwend , 354 S.C. at 471 , 581 S.E.2d at 503 (citing Bradley v. Hullander , 272 S.C. 6 , 249 S.E.2d 486 (1978) and Allen-Parker Co. v. Lollis , 257 S.C. 266 , 185 S.E.2d 739 (1971)). 2008However, [it] is axiomatic that there exists a well established exception to the parol evidence rule which allows extrinsic evidence by the party attacking an instrument on the ground of fraud. Redwend , 354 S.C. at 471 , 581 S.E.2d at 503 (citing Bradley v. Hullander , 272 S.C. 6 , 249 S.E.2d 486 (1978) and Allen-Parker Co. v. Lollis , 257 S.C. 266 , 185 S.E.2d 739 (1971)). | 4 | 1978–2008 |
Formento v. Encanto Business Park
green
2 sentences2003Formento v. Encanto Business Park, 154 Ariz. 495 , 744 P.2d 22 (App.1987). 2003Formento v. Encanto Business Park, 154 Ariz. 495 , 744 P.2d 22 (App.1987). | 2 | 1990–2003 |
Queen's Grant II Horizontal Property Regime v. Greenwood Development Corp.
green
1 sentence2023Regime, 368 S.C. at 373, 628 S.E.2d at 919 )). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Watts v. Monarch Builders, Inc. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Penton v. J.F. Cleckley & Co. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Manley v. Manley green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Parr v. Parr green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Smith v. McClam green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Palmetto Bank & Trust Co. v. Grimsley green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Blackwell v. Faucett green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Gilstrap v. Culpepper green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Superior Automobile Insurance v. Maners green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Scott v. SCOTT green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| McLeod v. Sandy Island Corp. green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Muckelvaney v. Liberty Life Insurance neutral | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Joyce green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| City of Orangeburg v. BUFORD green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Chatfield-Woods Co. v. Harley green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Soulios v. Mills Novelty Co. green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Lee v. . Adsit green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Garrett v. Ellison green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Lough v. Taylor neutral | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Drake v. Drake neutral | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Greene v. Mobley green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Northern Assurance Co. v. Grand View Building Assn. green | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Watson v. Motley green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Jackson v. Carter green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Simone v. Kirschner green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Innis v. Boller neutral | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Webb v. Lawson neutral | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Martin v. Home Bank green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.