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 2002–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wade v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Wade v. State, 348 S.C. 255, 263 , 559 S.E.2d 843, 847 (2002) ("Courts treat PCR differently than traditional civil cases."); id. (explaining "PCR actions are the only type of case which this [c]ourt mandates appellate counsel . . . brief all arguable issues, despite counsel's belief the appeal is frivolous" and stating a "lawyer knowingly filing a frivolous claim in any other civil case violates Rule 11"); Hiott v. State, 381 S.C. 622, 629 , 674 S.E.2d 491, 494-95 (2009) (concluding "Rule 11 . . . does not apply in PCR proceedings"); Rule 11(a) ("The written or electronic signature of an 2024See Wade v. State, 348 S.C. 255, 263 , 559 S.E.2d 843, 847 (2002) ("Courts treat PCR differently than traditional civil cases."); id. (explaining "PCR actions are the only type of case which this [c]ourt mandates appellate counsel . . . brief all arguable issues, despite counsel's belief the appeal is frivolous" and stating a "lawyer knowingly filing a frivolous claim in any other civil case violates Rule 11"); Hiott v. State, 381 S.C. 622, 629 , 674 S.E.2d 491, 494-95 (2009) (concluding "Rule 11 . . . does not apply in PCR proceedings"); Rule 11(a) ("The written or electronic signature of an | 2 | 2 |
Hiott v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Wade v. State, 348 S.C. 255, 263 , 559 S.E.2d 843, 847 (2002) ("Courts treat PCR differently than traditional civil cases."); id. (explaining "PCR actions are the only type of case which this [c]ourt mandates appellate counsel . . . brief all arguable issues, despite counsel's belief the appeal is frivolous" and stating a "lawyer knowingly filing a frivolous claim in any other civil case violates Rule 11"); Hiott v. State, 381 S.C. 622, 629 , 674 S.E.2d 491, 494-95 (2009) (concluding "Rule 11 . . . does not apply in PCR proceedings"); Rule 11(a) ("The written or electronic signature of an 2024See Wade v. State, 348 S.C. 255, 263 , 559 S.E.2d 843, 847 (2002) ("Courts treat PCR differently than traditional civil cases."); id. (explaining "PCR actions are the only type of case which this [c]ourt mandates appellate counsel . . . brief all arguable issues, despite counsel's belief the appeal is frivolous" and stating a "lawyer knowingly filing a frivolous claim in any other civil case violates Rule 11"); Hiott v. State, 381 S.C. 622, 629 , 674 S.E.2d 491, 494-95 (2009) (concluding "Rule 11 . . . does not apply in PCR proceedings"); Rule 11(a) ("The written or electronic signature of an | 1 | 1 |
Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Estate of Thompsongreen2 sentences2019As to whether the family court erred by denying Rachels's motion for sanctions: Simmons, 392 S.C. at 414 , 709 S.E.2d at 667 ("In appeals from the family court, th[e appellate court] reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis, 392 S.C. at 385 , 709 S.E.2d at 651–62 (finding this broad scope of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the fact that the family court, which saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony); Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Estate of Thompson, 424 S.C. 520, 529 2019As to whether the family court erred by denying Rachels's motion for sanctions: Simmons, 392 S.C. at 414 , 709 S.E.2d at 667 ("In appeals from the family court, th[e appellate court] reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis, 392 S.C. at 385 , 709 S.E.2d at 651–62 (finding this broad scope of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the fact that the family court, which saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony); Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Estate of Thompson, 424 S.C. 520, 529 | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2019As to whether the family court erred by denying Rachels's motion for sanctions: Simmons, 392 S.C. at 414 , 709 S.E.2d at 667 ("In appeals from the family court, th[e appellate court] reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis, 392 S.C. at 385 , 709 S.E.2d at 651–62 (finding this broad scope of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the fact that the family court, which saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony); Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Estate of Thompson, 424 S.C. 520, 529 2019As to whether the family court erred by denying Rachels's motion for sanctions: Simmons, 392 S.C. at 414 , 709 S.E.2d at 667 ("In appeals from the family court, th[e appellate court] reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis, 392 S.C. at 385 , 709 S.E.2d at 651–62 (finding this broad scope of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the fact that the family court, which saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony); Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Estate of Thompson, 424 S.C. 520, 529 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martin v. Rapid Plumbing
green
2 sentences2014On appeal the Appellate Panel reversed, stating that the penalty should not be assessed because the Guaranty Association and Employer “did not pursue a frivolous defense.” The penalty was reinstated by Judge Goode, which held that § 42-9-90 mandates the penalty any time compensation is not paid within fourteen days of becoming due, citing Martin v. Rapid Plumbing 369 S.C. 278 , 631 S.E.2d 547 (Ct.App.2006). 2014On appeal the Appellate Panel reversed, stating that the penalty should not be assessed because the Guaranty Association and Employer “did not pursue a frivolous defense.” The penalty was reinstated by Judge Goode, which held that § 42-9-90 mandates the penalty any time compensation is not paid within fourteen days of becoming due, citing Martin v. Rapid Plumbing 369 S.C. 278 , 631 S.E.2d 547 (Ct.App.2006). | 3 | 2011–2014 |
Lewis v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2019As to whether the family court erred by denying Rachels's motion for sanctions: Simmons, 392 S.C. at 414 , 709 S.E.2d at 667 ("In appeals from the family court, th[e appellate court] reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis, 392 S.C. at 385 , 709 S.E.2d at 651–62 (finding this broad scope of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the fact that the family court, which saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony); Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Estate of Thompson, 424 S.C. 520, 529 2019As to whether the family court erred by denying Rachels's motion for sanctions: Simmons, 392 S.C. at 414 , 709 S.E.2d at 667 ("In appeals from the family court, th[e appellate court] reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis, 392 S.C. at 385 , 709 S.E.2d at 651–62 (finding this broad scope of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the fact that the family court, which saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony); Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Estate of Thompson, 424 S.C. 520, 529 | 1 | 2019–2019 |
TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.
green
2 sentences2009The Supreme Court squarely addressed this issue in TXO, where the petitioner had brought a frivolous claim against the respondent’s oil and gas rights in an effort to renegotiate its royalty arrangement with the respondent. 509 U.S. 443 , 113 S.Ct. 2711 , 125 *591 L.Ed.2d 366. 2009The Supreme Court squarely addressed this issue in TXO, where the petitioner had brought a frivolous claim against the respondent’s oil and gas rights in an effort to renegotiate its royalty arrangement with the respondent. 509 U.S. 443 , 113 S.Ct. 2711 , 125 *591 L.Ed.2d 366. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Whitehead v. State
green
2 sentences2002S.C.Code Ann. § 17-27-60 (1985); Whitehead v. State, 310 S.C. 532 , 426 S.E.2d 315 (1992). 2002S.C.Code Ann. § 17-27-60 (1985); Whitehead v. State, 310 S.C. 532 , 426 S.E.2d 315 (1992). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.