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.
8 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1940–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bodkin v. Bodkingreen2 sentences2014Cf. Bodkin v. Bodkin, 388 S.C. 203, 224-25 , 694 S.E.2d 230, 241-42 (Ct.App.2010) (affirming the family court’s attorney’s fees award, in part, because the husband was in a far better financial condition to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees based upon their respective incomes and the effect of the award on their standard of living). 2014Cf. Bodkin v. Bodkin, 388 S.C. 203, 224-25 , 694 S.E.2d 230, 241-42 (Ct.App.2010) (affirming the family court’s attorney’s fees award, in part, because the husband was in a far better financial condition to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees based upon their respective incomes and the effect of the award on their standard of living). | 1 | 1 |
Paparella v. Paparellagreen2 sentences2004Code Ann. § 20-7-420 (42) (Supp. 2003) (The family court shall have exclusive jurisdiction . . . [t]o order joint or divided custody where the court finds it is in the best interest of the child.); Paparella , 340 S.C. at 191 , 531 S.E.2d at 300 (finding the evidence did not support an award of standard visitation to the father and expanding his visitation). 2004Code Ann. § 20-7-420 (42) (Supp. 2003) (The family court shall have exclusive jurisdiction . . . [t]o order joint or divided custody where the court finds it is in the best interest of the child.); Paparella , 340 S.C. at 191 , 531 S.E.2d at 300 (finding the evidence did not support an award of standard visitation to the father and expanding his visitation). | 1 | 1 |
Baron Data Systems, Inc. v. Lotergreen2 sentences2001“Where an attorney’s services and their value *484 are determined by the trier of fact, an appeal will not prevail if the findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence.” Baron Data Systems, Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 384 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989). 2001“Where an attorney’s services and their value *484 are determined by the trier of fact, an appeal will not prevail if the findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence.” Baron Data Systems, Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 384 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bannister v. Shepherd
green
2 sentences1960That appeal was docketed on September 11, 1940, and Judge Bellinger was so informed; but on September 30, 1940, he issued his order holding that under Bannister v. Shepherd, supra, an appeal would act as a supersedeas for only thirty days, and ordering the employer and the carrier to pay to the claimants the amount of the award, $18.00 per week, from August 11, 1939, the date of the award by the hearing Commissioner, “until the final determination of the issues raised by the appeal”, i. e. determination of those issues by the Supreme Court. *524 Notice of intention to appeal to this court from 1940Some time after the argument before him he was informed that the appeal from the order reinstating the award of the hearing commissioner had been docketed in the Supreme Court on September 11, 1940, but notwithstanding this he handed down his order dated September 30, 1940, holding that under the authority of the case of Bannister v. Shepherd, 191 S. C., 165, 4 S. E. (2d), 7, 10 , construing Section 60 of the compensation Act, an appeal would act as a supersedeas for a period of thirty days only, and he therefore ordered the employer and its carrier to pay to the claimants the amount of the aw | 2 | 1940–1960 |
Vick v. South Carolina Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2012In any event, the award was not error.” Id. at 483 , 556 S.E.2d at 700 . 2012In any event, the award was not error.” Id. at 483 , 556 S.E.2d at 700 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Ivey v. Ivey
green
1 sentence2004A reservation of an award is not standard in child support cases because if it subsequently appears security is necessary, the continuing jurisdiction of the family court affords ample opportunity to require security by life insurance. Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
McDonald v. Palmetto Theatres
green
1 sentence1960McDonald v. Palmetto Theaters, 196 S. C. 460, 13 S. E. (2d) 602 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
McDonald v. Palmetto Theaters
neutral
1 sentence1960McDonald v. Palmetto Theaters, 196 S. C. 400, 14 S. E. (2d) 273 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Ham v. Mullins Lumber Co.
green
1 sentence1941That .it was error to refuse to deny the motion to dismiss this claim for the reasons stated in the Record.” In his judgment by which he undertook to i-everse the full commission and reinstate the award of the hearing commissioner, the learned Circuit Judge held under the cited authority of Ham v. Mullins Lumber Company, 193 S. C., *464 66, 7 S. E. (2d), 712 , 715, that the above-quoted first and third grounds of the appellants were too general and should on that account not have been considered by the full commission; and as to the second ground, res judicata, he held that the commission had | 1 | 1941–1941 |
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.