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 1988–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Richland Memorial Hospital v. Burtongreen2 sentences2015As to whether the circuit court erred in finding the minor is not entitled to recover medical expenses under the necessaries doctrine: Richland Mem'l Hosp. v. Burton, 282 S.C. 159, 160-61 , 318 S.E.2d 12, 13 (1984) (explaining the necessaries doctrine holds spouses liable for each other's debts contracted prior to and during marriage and finding it remained a viable common law doctrine); Hughey v. Ausborn, 249 S.C. 470, 476 , 154 S.E.2d 839, 841 (1967) (holding the necessaries doctrine extends to a father and makes him responsible for providing his children's necessities of life); id. (explain 2015As to whether the circuit court erred in finding the minor is not entitled to recover medical expenses under the necessaries doctrine: Richland Mem'l Hosp. v. Burton, 282 S.C. 159, 160-61 , 318 S.E.2d 12, 13 (1984) (explaining the necessaries doctrine holds spouses liable for each other's debts contracted prior to and during marriage and finding it remained a viable common law doctrine); Hughey v. Ausborn, 249 S.C. 470, 476 , 154 S.E.2d 839, 841 (1967) (holding the necessaries doctrine extends to a father and makes him responsible for providing his children's necessities of life); id. (explain | 1 | 4 |
Anderson Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Hagengreen2 sentences1995Richland Memorial Hosp. v. Burton, supra ; Anderson Memorial Hosp. v. Hagen, ___ S.C. ___, 443 S.E.2d 399 (Ct.App.1994). 1995In Hagen, supra, this Court stated that the creditor must "first seek to recover from the assets of the ... primary obligor" before seeking recovery from the secondary obligor. | 1 | 2 |
O'Neal v. Carolina Farm Supply of Johnston, Inc.green2 sentences2015As to whether the circuit court erred in finding Respondents did not waive their right to argue the necessaries doctrine: Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555, 565 , 633 S.E.2d 505, 510 (2006) (providing an exception to the error preservation rule requiring an issue to be raised and ruled upon by the trial court when an issue is raised but not ruled upon at a hearing on a motion to reconsider); Rule 8(c), SCRCP (requiring a party, in replying to a preceding pleading, to affirmatively set forth his defenses); id. (providing a list of affirmative defenses that must be pled, including "any other ma 2015As to whether the circuit court erred in finding Respondents did not waive their right to argue the necessaries doctrine: Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555, 565 , 633 S.E.2d 505, 510 (2006) (providing an exception to the error preservation rule requiring an issue to be raised and ruled upon by the trial court when an issue is raised but not ruled upon at a hearing on a motion to reconsider); Rule 8(c), SCRCP (requiring a party, in replying to a preceding pleading, to affirmatively set forth his defenses); id. (providing a list of affirmative defenses that must be pled, including "any other ma | 1 | 1 |
Trident Regional Medical Center v. Evansgreen2 sentences2015Ctr. v. Evans, 317 S.C. 346, 348 , 454 S.E.2d 343, 344 (Ct. App. 1995) (declining to follow other states that have abolished the necessaries doctrine); see S.C. 2015Ctr. v. Evans, 317 S.C. 346, 348 , 454 S.E.2d 343, 344 (Ct. App. 1995) (declining to follow other states that have abolished the necessaries doctrine); see S.C. | 1 | 1 |
Pye v. Estate of Fox Ex Rel. Estate of Foxgreen2 sentences2015As to whether the circuit court erred in finding Respondents did not waive their right to argue the necessaries doctrine: Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555, 565 , 633 S.E.2d 505, 510 (2006) (providing an exception to the error preservation rule requiring an issue to be raised and ruled upon by the trial court when an issue is raised but not ruled upon at a hearing on a motion to reconsider); Rule 8(c), SCRCP (requiring a party, in replying to a preceding pleading, to affirmatively set forth his defenses); id. (providing a list of affirmative defenses that must be pled, including "any other ma 2015As to whether the circuit court erred in finding Respondents did not waive their right to argue the necessaries doctrine: Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555, 565 , 633 S.E.2d 505, 510 (2006) (providing an exception to the error preservation rule requiring an issue to be raised and ruled upon by the trial court when an issue is raised but not ruled upon at a hearing on a motion to reconsider); Rule 8(c), SCRCP (requiring a party, in replying to a preceding pleading, to affirmatively set forth his defenses); id. (providing a list of affirmative defenses that must be pled, including "any other ma | 1 | 1 |
Hughey v. Ausborngreen2 sentences2015As to whether the circuit court erred in finding the minor is not entitled to recover medical expenses under the necessaries doctrine: Richland Mem'l Hosp. v. Burton, 282 S.C. 159, 160-61 , 318 S.E.2d 12, 13 (1984) (explaining the necessaries doctrine holds spouses liable for each other's debts contracted prior to and during marriage and finding it remained a viable common law doctrine); Hughey v. Ausborn, 249 S.C. 470, 476 , 154 S.E.2d 839, 841 (1967) (holding the necessaries doctrine extends to a father and makes him responsible for providing his children's necessities of life); id. (explain 2015As to whether the circuit court erred in finding the minor is not entitled to recover medical expenses under the necessaries doctrine: Richland Mem'l Hosp. v. Burton, 282 S.C. 159, 160-61 , 318 S.E.2d 12, 13 (1984) (explaining the necessaries doctrine holds spouses liable for each other's debts contracted prior to and during marriage and finding it remained a viable common law doctrine); Hughey v. Ausborn, 249 S.C. 470, 476 , 154 S.E.2d 839, 841 (1967) (holding the necessaries doctrine extends to a father and makes him responsible for providing his children's necessities of life); id. (explain | 1 | 1 |
Whitehead v. Stategreen2 sentences2015As to whether the circuit court erred in finding Respondents did not waive their right to argue the necessaries doctrine: Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555, 565 , 633 S.E.2d 505, 510 (2006) (providing an exception to the error preservation rule requiring an issue to be raised and ruled upon by the trial court when an issue is raised but not ruled upon at a hearing on a motion to reconsider); Rule 8(c), SCRCP (requiring a party, in replying to a preceding pleading, to affirmatively set forth his defenses); id. (providing a list of affirmative defenses that must be pled, including "any other ma 2015As to whether the circuit court erred in finding Respondents did not waive their right to argue the necessaries doctrine: Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555, 565 , 633 S.E.2d 505, 510 (2006) (providing an exception to the error preservation rule requiring an issue to be raised and ruled upon by the trial court when an issue is raised but not ruled upon at a hearing on a motion to reconsider); Rule 8(c), SCRCP (requiring a party, in replying to a preceding pleading, to affirmatively set forth his defenses); id. (providing a list of affirmative defenses that must be pled, including "any other ma | 1 | 1 |
Tucker v. Buffalo Cotton Millsgreen1 sentence2015As to whether the circuit court erred in finding the minor is not entitled to recover medical expenses under the necessaries doctrine: Richland Mem'l Hosp. v. Burton, 282 S.C. 159, 160-61 , 318 S.E.2d 12, 13 (1984) (explaining the necessaries doctrine holds spouses liable for each other's debts contracted prior to and during marriage and finding it remained a viable common law doctrine); Hughey v. Ausborn, 249 S.C. 470, 476 , 154 S.E.2d 839, 841 (1967) (holding the necessaries doctrine extends to a father and makes him responsible for providing his children's necessities of life); id. (explain | 1 | 1 |
Bridges v. Joanna Cotton Millgreen2 sentences2015As to whether the circuit court erred in finding the minor is not entitled to recover medical expenses under the necessaries doctrine: Richland Mem'l Hosp. v. Burton, 282 S.C. 159, 160-61 , 318 S.E.2d 12, 13 (1984) (explaining the necessaries doctrine holds spouses liable for each other's debts contracted prior to and during marriage and finding it remained a viable common law doctrine); Hughey v. Ausborn, 249 S.C. 470, 476 , 154 S.E.2d 839, 841 (1967) (holding the necessaries doctrine extends to a father and makes him responsible for providing his children's necessities of life); id. (explain 2015As to whether the circuit court erred in finding the minor is not entitled to recover medical expenses under the necessaries doctrine: Richland Mem'l Hosp. v. Burton, 282 S.C. 159, 160-61 , 318 S.E.2d 12, 13 (1984) (explaining the necessaries doctrine holds spouses liable for each other's debts contracted prior to and during marriage and finding it remained a viable common law doctrine); Hughey v. Ausborn, 249 S.C. 470, 476 , 154 S.E.2d 839, 841 (1967) (holding the necessaries doctrine extends to a father and makes him responsible for providing his children's necessities of life); id. (explain | 1 | 1 |
Jersey Shore Medical Center-Fitkin Hospital v. Estate of Baumgreen2 sentences1995See Estate of Baum, supra; Steiner, supra. Other states have held that under the necessaries doctrine, husbands and wives spouses are jointly and severally liable for the necessaries supplies to the other spouse. 1995See Steiner, 588 N.Y.S.2d at 896 ; Estate of Baum, 417 A.2d at 1010 . | 1 | 1 |
Medical Business Associates, Inc. v. Steinergreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., North Carolina Baptist Hosps., Inc. v. Harris, 319 N.C. 347 , 354 S.E.2d 471, 472-73 (1987); Medical Business Assocs., Inc. v. Steiner, 183 A.D.2d 86 , 588 N.Y.S.2d 890 (1992). 1995See, e.g., North Carolina Baptist Hosps., Inc. v. Harris, 319 N.C. 347 , 354 S.E.2d 471, 472-73 (1987); Medical Business Assocs., Inc. v. Steiner, 183 A.D.2d 86 , 588 N.Y.S.2d 890 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Inc. v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., North Carolina Baptist Hosps., Inc. v. Harris, 319 N.C. 347 , 354 S.E.2d 471, 472-73 (1987); Medical Business Assocs., Inc. v. Steiner, 183 A.D.2d 86 , 588 N.Y.S.2d 890 (1992). 1995See, e.g., North Carolina Baptist Hosps., Inc. v. Harris, 319 N.C. 347 , 354 S.E.2d 471, 472-73 (1987); Medical Business Assocs., Inc. v. Steiner, 183 A.D.2d 86 , 588 N.Y.S.2d 890 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Amisub of South Carolina, Inc. v. Passmoregreen2 sentences1995The court recognized that the necessaries doctrine permits the creditor of one spouse to seek recovery from the other spouse, and held that such an action was properly brought in circuit court rather than family court. — S.C. at —, 447 S.E. (2d) at 209 . 1995The court recognized that the necessaries doctrine permits the creditor of one spouse to seek recovery from the other spouse, and held that such an action was properly brought in circuit court rather than family court. ___ S.C. at ___, 447 S.E.2d at 209 . | 1 | 1 |
Cuyahoga County Hospitals v. Pricegreen2 sentences1995See Cuyahoga County Hospitals v. Price, 64 Ohio App.3d 410 , 581 N.E.2d 1125 (1989); North Carolina Baptist Hosps., supra . 1995See Cuyahoga County Hospitals v. Price, 64 Ohio App.3d 410 , 581 N.E.2d 1125 (1989); North Carolina Baptist Hosps., supra . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ateyeh v. Volkswagen of Florence, Inc.green2 sentences2000But see Ateyeh v. Volkswagen of Florence, Inc., 288 S.C. 101 , 341 S.E.2d 378 (1986) (applying a narrow exception to this rule for a ‘third-party’ spouse under the necessaries doctrine). 2000But see Ateyeh v. Volkswagen of Florence, Inc., 288 S.C. 101 , 341 S.E.2d 378 (1986) (applying a narrow exception to this rule for a ‘third-party’ spouse under the necessaries doctrine). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Application of Burwell
green
1 sentence2015As to whether the circuit court erred in finding the minor is not entitled to recover medical expenses under the necessaries doctrine: Richland Mem'l Hosp. v. Burton, 282 S.C. 159, 160-61 , 318 S.E.2d 12, 13 (1984) (explaining the necessaries doctrine holds spouses liable for each other's debts contracted prior to and during marriage and finding it remained a viable common law doctrine); Hughey v. Ausborn, 249 S.C. 470, 476 , 154 S.E.2d 839, 841 (1967) (holding the necessaries doctrine extends to a father and makes him responsible for providing his children's necessities of life); id. (explain | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Fobes v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998The court noted the reasoning used in Ateyeh therefore was not applicable because Arizona “does not share this feature of South Carolina law,” and that “[in Arizona] there is no case or statute which renders one spouse wholly liable to a third party provider for services performed for the other spouse.” Id. 861 P.2d at 697 . 1998The court noted the reasoning used in Ateyeh therefore was not applicable because Arizona “does not share this feature of South Carolina law,” and that “[in Arizona] there is no case or statute which renders one spouse wholly liable to a third party provider for services performed for the other spouse.” Id. 861 P.2d at 697 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.