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 2001–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Condongreen2 sentences2025See Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP (stating the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure allow for the dismissal of an action if the complaint fails "to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"); Williams v. Condon, 347 S.C. 227, 233, 553 S.E.2d 496, 500 (Ct. App. 2001) ("Upon review, the appellate tribunal applies the same standard of review that was implemented by the [circuit] court."); id. at 233, 553 S.E.2d at 499 ("The question to be considered is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the pleadings articulate any valid claim for relief."). 2025See Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP (stating the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure allow for the dismissal of an action if the complaint fails "to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"); Williams v. Condon, 347 S.C. 227, 233, 553 S.E.2d 496, 500 (Ct. App. 2001) ("Upon review, the appellate tribunal applies the same standard of review that was implemented by the [circuit] court."); id. at 233, 553 S.E.2d at 499 ("The question to be considered is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the pleadings articulate any valid claim for relief."). | 3 | 4 |
Cowart v. Pooregreen2 sentences2007See Gentry, 337 S.C. at 5 , 522 S.E.2d at 139 ; see also Cowart v. Poore, 337 S.C. 359 , 523 S.E.2d 182 (Ct.App.1999) (explaining that looking at facts in light most favorable to plaintiff, and with all doubts resolved in his behalf, the court must consider whether the pleadings articulate any valid claim for relief). 2007See Gentry, 337 S.C. at 5 , 522 S.E.2d at 139 ; see also Cowart v. Poore, 337 S.C. 359 , 523 S.E.2d 182 (Ct.App.1999) (explaining that looking at facts in light most favorable to plaintiff, and with all doubts resolved in his behalf, the court must consider whether the pleadings articulate any valid claim for relief). | 3 | 4 |
Gentry v. Yoncegreen2 sentences2007See Gentry, 337 S.C. at 5 , 522 S.E.2d at 139 ; see also Cowart v. Poore, 337 S.C. 359 , 523 S.E.2d 182 (Ct.App.1999) (explaining that looking at facts in light most favorable to plaintiff, and with all doubts resolved in his behalf, the court must consider whether the pleadings articulate any valid claim for relief). 2007See Gentry, 337 S.C. at 5 , 522 S.E.2d at 139 ; see also Cowart v. Poore, 337 S.C. 359 , 523 S.E.2d 182 (Ct.App.1999) (explaining that looking at facts in light most favorable to plaintiff, and with all doubts resolved in his behalf, the court must consider whether the pleadings articulate any valid claim for relief). | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Toussaint v. Ham Ex Rel. Bailey Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences2001Toussaint v. Ham, 292 S.C. 415 , 357 S.E.2d 8 (1987); Cowart v. Poore, 337 S.C. 359 , 523 S.E.2d 182 (Ct.App.1999). 2001Toussaint v. Ham, 292 S.C. 415 , 357 S.E.2d 8 (1987); Cowart v. Poore, 337 S.C. 359 , 523 S.E.2d 182 (Ct.App.1999). | 1 | 2001–2001 |