generally recognized rule in South Carolina

8 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1912–2010 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Singleton v. Sherergreen scctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 1 sentence 2010ISSUE Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment because Cartee did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the respondents deviated from the generally recognized standard of care and caused Cartee's injury and death?[1] STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, "[t]he purpose of [which] is to expedite the disposition of cases which do not require the services of a fact finder." Singleton v. Sherer , 377 S.C. 185, 198, 659 , S.E.2d 196, 205 (Ct. App. 2008).	1	1
Cirsosky v. Smathersgreen sc · 1924 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1932–1932 1 sentence 1932See the case of Cirsosky v. Smathers, 128 S. C., 358, 122 S. E., 864 and authorities therein cited.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Moore v. Sumter County Council green sc · 1990 2 sentences 2000Moore v. Sumter County Council, 300 S.C. 270 , 387 S.E.2d 455 (1990). 2000Moore v. Sumter County Council, 300 S.C. 270 , 387 S.E.2d 455 (1990).	1	2000–2000
Parker Peanut Co. v. Felder green sc · 1945 1 sentence 1969Parker Peanut Co. v. Felder, 207 S. C. 63, 34 S. E. (2d) 488 . *648 Graves alleged in his complaint that the business relationship entered into by him with Dargan was that of a partnership.	1	1969–1969
Merchants Warehouse Co. v. United States green scotus · 1931 2 sentences 1951For cases supporting this generally recognized rule, see Merchants Warehouse Co. v. 388 United States, 283 U. S. 501, 508 , 51 S. Ct. 505 , 75 L. 1951For cases supporting this generally recognized rule, see Merchants Warehouse Co. v. 388 United States, 283 U. S. 501, 508 , 51 S. Ct. 505 , 75 L.	1	1951–1951
Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States green scotus · 1937 2 sentences 1951Ed. 1227 ; Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States, 300 U. S. 297 , 57 S. Ct. 478 , 81 L. 1951Ed. 1227 ; Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States, 300 U. S. 297 , 57 S. Ct. 478 , 81 L.	1	1951–1951
Ekern v. McGovern green · 1913 2 sentences 1935This generally recognized principle will later in this opinion be applied to the particular facts of Mr. Rizer’s case. 366 The question is most ably and interestingly discussed in Ekern v. McGovern, 154 Wis., 157 , 142 N. W., 595, 612 , 46 L. 1935This generally recognized principle will later in this opinion be applied to the particular facts of Mr. Rizer’s case. 366 The question is most ably and interestingly discussed in Ekern v. McGovern, 154 Wis., 157 , 142 N. W., 595, 612 , 46 L.	1	1935–1935
Anderson v. Pilgram green sc · 1889 1 sentence 1931In Anderson v. Pilgram, 30 S. C., 499, 9 S. E., 587, 589 , 4 L.	1	1931–1931
McAllister v. United States green scotus · 1891 1 sentence 1912In People v. Robb, supra , the New York Court of Appeals says that the following provision of the Constitution of New York was an embodiment of the generally recognized rule: "When the duration of any office is not provided by the Constitution, it may be declared by law, and, if not so declared, such office shall be held during the pleasure of the authority making the appointment." In Marbury v. Madison , 1 Cranch, 138 , 2 Law Ed. 60 , Chief Justice Marshall thus stated the general rule: "Mr. Marbury, then, since his *Page 460 commission was signed by the President, and sealed by the Secretary	1	1912–1912
Parsons v. United States green scotus · 1897 1 sentence 1912At the argument the case of Parsons v. U.S. , 167 U.S. 324 , 42 Law Ed. 185 , was mainly relied on as completely overturning the rule stated, and laying down the rule that the power of appointment implies the power of removal even where the term of office is fixed by the statute which confers the power of appointment, and no power of removal is expressed.	1	1912–1912
Reagan v. United States green scotus · 1901 1 sentence 1912In People v. Robb, supra , the New York Court of Appeals says that the following provision of the Constitution of New York was an embodiment of the generally recognized rule: "When the duration of any office is not provided by the Constitution, it may be declared by law, and, if not so declared, such office shall be held during the pleasure of the authority making the appointment." In Marbury v. Madison , 1 Cranch, 138 , 2 Law Ed. 60 , Chief Justice Marshall thus stated the general rule: "Mr. Marbury, then, since his *Page 460 commission was signed by the President, and sealed by the Secretary	1	1912–1912
People Ex Rel. Cline v. . Robb green · 1891 1 sentence 1912In People v. Robb, supra , the New York Court of Appeals says that the following provision of the Constitution of New York was an embodiment of the generally recognized rule: "When the duration of any office is not provided by the Constitution, it may be declared by law, and, if not so declared, such office shall be held during the pleasure of the authority making the appointment." In Marbury v. Madison , 1 Cranch, 138 , 2 Law Ed. 60 , Chief Justice Marshall thus stated the general rule: "Mr. Marbury, then, since his *Page 460 commission was signed by the President, and sealed by the Secretary	1	1912–1912
Holmead v. Fox neutral circtddc · 1803 1 sentence 1912In People v. Robb, supra , the New York Court of Appeals says that the following provision of the Constitution of New York was an embodiment of the generally recognized rule: "When the duration of any office is not provided by the Constitution, it may be declared by law, and, if not so declared, such office shall be held during the pleasure of the authority making the appointment." In Marbury v. Madison , 1 Cranch, 138 , 2 Law Ed. 60 , Chief Justice Marshall thus stated the general rule: "Mr. Marbury, then, since his *Page 460 commission was signed by the President, and sealed by the Secretary	1	1912–1912
Ex Parte Duncan N. Hennen green · 1839 1 sentence 1912In People v. Robb, supra , the New York Court of Appeals says that the following provision of the Constitution of New York was an embodiment of the generally recognized rule: "When the duration of any office is not provided by the Constitution, it may be declared by law, and, if not so declared, such office shall be held during the pleasure of the authority making the appointment." In Marbury v. Madison , 1 Cranch, 138 , 2 Law Ed. 60 , Chief Justice Marshall thus stated the general rule: "Mr. Marbury, then, since his *Page 460 commission was signed by the President, and sealed by the Secretary	1	1912–1912

Where else courts name it

KY 27 (1922–2023) CA 25 (1916–2019) TX 23 (1915–2016) IL 23 (1881–2019) FL 20 (1947–2015) MO 18 (1894–2018) AL 18 (1882–1999) IA 17 (1895–2016) MI 16 (1893–2023) OR 15 (1910–2013) CO 12 (1905–2008) VA 12 (1986–2020) MD 12 (1973–2023) WV 11 (1916–1999) ID 10 (1920–2025) NY 10 (1890–2016) WA 10 (1917–1995) OK 10 (1924–2017) LA 9 (1925–2002) CT 8 (1932–2017) NC 8 (1908–1986) SD 8 (1979–2006) SC 8 (1912–2010) MN 8 (1885–1999) NJ 8 (1952–2019) OH 7 (1937–2004) GA 7 (1890–1996) PA 7 (1926–2021) MT 6 (1919–2022) WI 6 (1977–2000) KS 6 (1935–2010) RI 6 (1933–2001) MS 6 (1922–2012) AZ 5 (1939–1982) NV 5 (1865–1999) UT 4 (1927–2020) IN 4 (1893–2013) WY 4 (1941–2026) MA 4 (1909–2024) ND 4 (1925–2000) HI 3 (1932–1970) NM 3 (1903–1979) VT 3 (1858–1991) NE 3 (1981–2000) TN 3 (1937–1958)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check