mutuality requirement (South Carolina) · Go Syfert
← South Carolina issues

mutuality requirement in South Carolina

8 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2023 3 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Snavely v. AMISUB of South Carolina, Inc.green
scctapp · 2008 · cited in 6 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2009–2023
2 sentences

2023"While the traditional use of collateral estoppel required mutuality of parties to bar relitigation, modern courts recognize the mutuality requirement is not necessary for the application of collateral estoppel where the party against whom estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to previously litigate the issues." Carolina Renewal, Inc., 385 S.C. at 554 , 684 S.E.2d at 782 (quoting Snavely v. AMISUB of S.C., Inc., 379 S.C. 386, 398 , 665 S.E.2d 222, 228 (Ct. App. 2008)).

2023"While the traditional use of collateral estoppel required mutuality of parties to bar relitigation, modern courts recognize the mutuality requirement is not necessary for the application of collateral estoppel where the party against whom estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to previously litigate the issues." Carolina Renewal, Inc., 385 S.C. at 554 , 684 S.E.2d at 782 (quoting Snavely v. AMISUB of S.C., Inc., 379 S.C. 386, 398 , 665 S.E.2d 222, 228 (Ct. App. 2008)).

66
Carolina Renewal, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Transportationgreen
scctapp · 2009 · cited in 4 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2014–2023
2 sentences

2023"While the traditional use of collateral estoppel required mutuality of parties to bar relitigation, modern courts recognize the mutuality requirement is not necessary for the application of collateral estoppel where the party against whom estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to previously litigate the issues." Carolina Renewal, Inc., 385 S.C. at 554 , 684 S.E.2d at 782 (quoting Snavely v. AMISUB of S.C., Inc., 379 S.C. 386, 398 , 665 S.E.2d 222, 228 (Ct. App. 2008)).

2023"While the traditional use of collateral estoppel required mutuality of parties to bar relitigation, modern courts recognize the mutuality requirement is not necessary for the application of collateral estoppel where the party against whom estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to previously litigate the issues." Carolina Renewal, Inc., 385 S.C. at 554 , 684 S.E.2d at 782 (quoting Snavely v. AMISUB of S.C., Inc., 379 S.C. 386, 398 , 665 S.E.2d 222, 228 (Ct. App. 2008)).

24
Beall v. Doegreen
scctapp · 1984 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2012
2 sentences

2012"While the traditional use of collateral estoppel required mutuality of parties to bar relitigation, modern courts recognize the mutuality requirement is not necessary for the application of collateral estoppel where the party against whom estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to previously litigate the issues." Snavely v. AMISUB of S.C., Inc., 379 S.C. 386, 398 , 665 S.E.2d 222, 228 (Ct. App. 2008) (emphasis added) (citing Beall v. Doe, 281 S.C. 363, 370-71 , 315 S.E.2d 186, 190-91 (Ct. App. 1984)). "[H]owever, to assert collateral estoppel successfully, the party seeking issue

2012"While the traditional use of collateral estoppel required mutuality of parties to bar relitigation, modern courts recognize the mutuality requirement is not necessary for the application of collateral estoppel where the party against whom estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to previously litigate the issues." Snavely v. AMISUB of S.C., Inc., 379 S.C. 386, 398 , 665 S.E.2d 222, 228 (Ct. App. 2008) (emphasis added) (citing Beall v. Doe, 281 S.C. 363, 370-71 , 315 S.E.2d 186, 190-91 (Ct. App. 1984)). "[H]owever, to assert collateral estoppel successfully, the party seeking issue

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Where else courts name it

MI 44 (1943–2026) IL 32 (1956–2024) OH 21 (1983–2025) VA 18 (1974–2023) CT 16 (1988–2020) FL 13 (1976–2022) CA 10 (1978–2022) NC 10 (1983–2025) SC 8 (2008–2023) MD 7 (1969–2018) AR 7 (1974–2009) NJ 7 (1967–1993) WA 7 (1970–2019) NY 6 (1926–1989) MN 6 (1902–2012) NM 6 (1974–2002) AL 6 (1994–2024) CO 5 (1987–2017) VT 5 (1932–2018) AZ 5 (1981–2019) IN 5 (1984–2023) TX 5 (1970–1993) TN 5 (2006–2026) AK 4 (1970–1992) WI 4 (1986–1996) MO 4 (1920–2018) IA 3 (1975–2021) PA 3 (1977–1986) KS 3 (1986–2004) ND 3 (1992–2019) WY 2 (1984–2020) DE 2 (1991–2020) GA 2 (1974–1975) OR 2 (1952–2007) MA 2 (1954–1995) HI 2 (1975–2004) DC 2 (1980–1984) KY 2 (1964–2018)

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