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 1 courts 2011–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc.green2 sentences2021"However, a choice-of-law clause in a contract will not be enforced if application of foreign law results in a violation of South Carolina public policy." Id. at 449, 814 S.E.2d at 652 (quoting Nucor, 482 F. Supp. 2d at 728); see also Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc., 373 S.C. 14, 33 , 644 S.E.2d 663, 673 (2007) ("This [c]ourt will not enforce a contract which is violative of public policy, statutory law, or provisions of the Constitution."); Boone v. Boone, 345 S.C. 8, 14 , 546 S.E.2d 191, 193 (2001) ("[U]nder the 'public policy exception,' the [c]ourt will not apply foreign law if it vio 2021"However, a choice-of-law clause in a contract will not be enforced if application of foreign law results in a violation of South Carolina public policy." Id. at 449, 814 S.E.2d at 652 (quoting Nucor, 482 F. Supp. 2d at 728); see also Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc., 373 S.C. 14, 33 , 644 S.E.2d 663, 673 (2007) ("This [c]ourt will not enforce a contract which is violative of public policy, statutory law, or provisions of the Constitution."); Boone v. Boone, 345 S.C. 8, 14 , 546 S.E.2d 191, 193 (2001) ("[U]nder the 'public policy exception,' the [c]ourt will not apply foreign law if it vio | 2 | 3 |
Nash v. Tindall Corp.green2 sentences2018"However, a choice-of-law clause in a contract will not be enforced if application of foreign law results in a violation of South Carolina public policy." Nucor Corp. , 482 F.Supp.2d at 728 ; see also Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc. , 373 S.C. 14 , 33, 644 S.E.2d 663 , 673 (2007) ("This [c]ourt will not enforce a contract which is violative of public policy, statutory law, or provisions of the Constitution."). "[T]he fact that the law of two states may differ does not necessarily imply that the law of one state violates the public policy of the other." Nash v. Tindall Corp. , 375 S.C. 36 2018"However, a choice-of-law clause in a contract will not be enforced if application of foreign law results in a violation of South Carolina public policy." Nucor Corp. , 482 F.Supp.2d at 728 ; see also Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc. , 373 S.C. 14 , 33, 644 S.E.2d 663 , 673 (2007) ("This [c]ourt will not enforce a contract which is violative of public policy, statutory law, or provisions of the Constitution."). "[T]he fact that the law of two states may differ does not necessarily imply that the law of one state violates the public policy of the other." Nash v. Tindall Corp. , 375 S.C. 36 | 2 | 3 |
Boone v. Boonegreen2 sentences2021"However, a choice-of-law clause in a contract will not be enforced if application of foreign law results in a violation of South Carolina public policy." Id. at 449, 814 S.E.2d at 652 (quoting Nucor, 482 F. Supp. 2d at 728); see also Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc., 373 S.C. 14, 33 , 644 S.E.2d 663, 673 (2007) ("This [c]ourt will not enforce a contract which is violative of public policy, statutory law, or provisions of the Constitution."); Boone v. Boone, 345 S.C. 8, 14 , 546 S.E.2d 191, 193 (2001) ("[U]nder the 'public policy exception,' the [c]ourt will not apply foreign law if it vio 2021"However, a choice-of-law clause in a contract will not be enforced if application of foreign law results in a violation of South Carolina public policy." Id. at 449, 814 S.E.2d at 652 (quoting Nucor, 482 F. Supp. 2d at 728); see also Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc., 373 S.C. 14, 33 , 644 S.E.2d 663, 673 (2007) ("This [c]ourt will not enforce a contract which is violative of public policy, statutory law, or provisions of the Constitution."); Boone v. Boone, 345 S.C. 8, 14 , 546 S.E.2d 191, 193 (2001) ("[U]nder the 'public policy exception,' the [c]ourt will not apply foreign law if it vio | 2 | 2 |
Nucor Corp. v. Bellgreen2 sentences2018"However, a choice-of-law clause in a contract will not be enforced if application of foreign law results in a violation of South Carolina public policy." Nucor Corp. , 482 F.Supp.2d at 728 ; see also Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc. , 373 S.C. 14 , 33, 644 S.E.2d 663 , 673 (2007) ("This [c]ourt will not enforce a contract which is violative of public policy, statutory law, or provisions of the Constitution."). "[T]he fact that the law of two states may differ does not necessarily imply that the law of one state violates the public policy of the other." Nash v. Tindall Corp. , 375 S.C. 36 2011See Nucor Corp., 482 F.Supp.2d at 728 (“However, a choice-of-law clause in a contract will not be enforced if application of foreign law results in a violation of South Carolina public policy.”). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Skywaves I Corp. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences2023"However, a choice-of-law clause in a contract will not be enforced if application of foreign law results in a violation of South Carolina public policy." Id. (quoting Skywaves, 423 S.C. at 449, 814 S.E.2d at 652 ). 2023"However, a choice-of-law clause in a contract will not be enforced if application of foreign law results in a violation of South Carolina public policy." Id. (quoting Skywaves, 423 S.C. at 449, 814 S.E.2d at 652 ). | 2 | 2021–2023 |
Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.
green
2 sentences2024Similarly, in Volt, the United States Supreme Court observed that the disputed contract "contained an agreement to arbitrate all disputes between the parties 'arising out of or relating to this contract or the breach thereof'" and "also contained a choice-of-law clause providing that '[t]he Contract shall be governed by the law of the place where the Project is located.'" 489 U.S. at 470 . 2024Like the choice of law provision in the present case, the Volt contract's choice of law provision was separate from the arbitration provision, and the Court found that through this choice of law provision, the parties "agreed to abide by state rules of arbitration." Id. at 479 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Marriage of Hattis
green
2 sentences2022The Tucker court stated, "[A] minimum contacts approach will support California jurisdiction over [a service member] for the purposes of determining his liability for child support . . . but that same court cannot adjudicate the division of his military pension, even if California law would apply under a choice of law analysis." Id. at 406-07 (quoting In re Marriage of Hattis, 242 Cal. Rptr. at 415 ). 2022The Tucker court stated, "[A] minimum contacts approach will support California jurisdiction over [a service member] for the purposes of determining his liability for child support . . . but that same court cannot adjudicate the division of his military pension, even if California law would apply under a choice of law analysis." Id. at 406-07 (quoting In re Marriage of Hattis, 242 Cal. Rptr. at 415 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Lister v. NationsBank
green
2 sentences2015The court then held “[sjince the [plaintiffs] suffered their financial loss as a result of [the Avis employees’] misrepresentation [that they were authorized to charge the plaintiffs’ credit card] in South Carolina, we conclude South Carolina law applies under the choice of law test for torts.” Id. at 144 , 494 S.E.2d at 455 . 2015The court then held “[sjince the [plaintiffs] suffered their financial loss as a result of [the Avis employees’] misrepresentation [that they were authorized to charge the plaintiffs’ credit card] in South Carolina, we conclude South Carolina law applies under the choice of law test for torts.” Id. at 144 , 494 S.E.2d at 455 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.