preponderance of evidence standard in South Carolina

2018However, if the factual issue before the Commission involves a jurisdictional question, this court's review is governed by the preponderance of evidence standard." (citation omitted)); id. at 567 , 643 S.E.2d at 100 ("The existence of the employer-employee relationship is a jurisdictional question."); id. at 572 , 643 S.E.2d at 102 ("The fundamental test of the employment relationship is the right of the employer to control the details of the employee's work."); id. at 572 , 643 S.E.2d at 102-03 ("There are four elements which determine the right of control: 1) direct evidence of the right or

2018However, if the factual issue before the Commission involves a jurisdictional question, this court's review is governed by the preponderance of evidence standard." (citation omitted)); id. at 567 , 643 S.E.2d at 100 ("The existence of the employer-employee relationship is a jurisdictional question."); id. at 572 , 643 S.E.2d at 102 ("The fundamental test of the employment relationship is the right of the employer to control the details of the employee's work."); id. at 572 , 643 S.E.2d at 102-03 ("There are four elements which determine the right of control: 1) direct evidence of the right or

2007Nelson v. Yellow Cab Co., 349 S.C. 589, 594 , 564 S.E.2d 110, 112 (2002); Vines v. Champion Bldg.

2007Nelson v. Yellow Cab Co., 349 S.C. 589, 594 , 564 S.E.2d 110, 112 (2002); Vines v. Champion Bldg.

2022Act is jurisdictional."); Hernandez-Zuniga v. Tickle, 374 S.C. 235, 242 , 647 S.E.2d 691, 694 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[I]f the factual issue before the Commission involves a jurisdictional question, [an appellate] court's review is governed by the preponderance of evidence standard."); id. at 243 , 647 S.E.2d at 695 (stating an appellate court "has both the power and duty to review the entire record, find jurisdictional facts without regard to conclusions of the Commission on the issue, and decide the jurisdictional question in accord with the preponderance of evidence"); id. ("Workers' compensation

2022Act is jurisdictional."); Hernandez-Zuniga v. Tickle, 374 S.C. 235, 242 , 647 S.E.2d 691, 694 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[I]f the factual issue before the Commission involves a jurisdictional question, [an appellate] court's review is governed by the preponderance of evidence standard."); id. at 243 , 647 S.E.2d at 695 (stating an appellate court "has both the power and duty to review the entire record, find jurisdictional facts without regard to conclusions of the Commission on the issue, and decide the jurisdictional question in accord with the preponderance of evidence"); id. ("Workers' compensation

2018Co., Inc., 381 S.C. 326, 330 , 673 S.E.2d 801, 803 (2009) (holding in cases applying the preponderance of evidence standard at trial, a claimant need only present a mere scintilla of evidence to support each element of a claim to withstand a motion for summary judgment); Hotel & Motel Holdings, LLC v. BJC Enters., LLC, 414 S.C. 635, 652 , 780 S.E.2d 263 , 272 (Ct. App. 2015) (delineating elements of breach of contract claim). 2.

2018Co., Inc., 381 S.C. 326, 330 , 673 S.E.2d 801, 803 (2009) (holding in cases applying the preponderance of evidence standard at trial, a claimant need only present a mere scintilla of evidence to support each element of a claim to withstand a motion for summary judgment); Hotel & Motel Holdings, LLC v. BJC Enters., LLC, 414 S.C. 635, 652 , 780 S.E.2d 263 , 272 (Ct. App. 2015) (delineating elements of breach of contract claim). 2.

2016“A liberal construction of the evidence cannot be substituted for failure of proof of any essential element of the claim; and the preponderance of evidence rule has been held not to require, as a matter of law, that doubts arising from the evidence be resolved in favor of one party or the other.” Cross v. Concrete Materials, 236 S.C. 440, 446-47 , 114 S.E.2d 828, 832 (1960) (quoting 100 C.J.S.

2016“A liberal construction of the evidence cannot be substituted for failure of proof of any essential element of the claim; and the preponderance of evidence rule has been held not to require, as a matter of law, that doubts arising from the evidence be resolved in favor of one party or the other.” Cross v. Concrete Materials, 236 S.C. 440, 446-47 , 114 S.E.2d 828, 832 (1960) (quoting 100 C.J.S.

2013See Brayboy v. WorkForce, 383 S.C. 463, 568 , 681 S.E.2d 567, 466 (2009) (applying a preponderance of the evidence burden of proof to the determination of whether a claimant's employment relationship is to be vitiated based upon fraud in the application).

2013See Brayboy v. WorkForce, 383 S.C. 463, 568 , 681 S.E.2d 567, 466 (2009) (applying a preponderance of the evidence burden of proof to the determination of whether a claimant's employment relationship is to be vitiated based upon fraud in the application).

2007Nelson v. Yellow Cab Co., 343 S.C. 102, 108 , 538 S.E.2d 276, 279 (Ct.App.2000) aff'd 349 S.C. 589 , 564 S.E.2d 110 (2002); Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 45 , 443 S.E.2d 803, 804 (1994); Vines v. Champion Bldg.

2007Nelson v. Yellow Cab Co., 343 S.C. 102, 108 , 538 S.E.2d 276, 279 (Ct.App.2000) aff'd 349 S.C. 589 , 564 S.E.2d 110 (2002); Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 45 , 443 S.E.2d 803, 804 (1994); Vines v. Champion Bldg.

2007Nelson v. Yellow Cab Co., 343 S.C. 102, 108 , 538 S.E.2d 276, 279 (Ct.App.2000) aff'd 349 S.C. 589 , 564 S.E.2d 110 (2002); Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 45 , 443 S.E.2d 803, 804 (1994); Vines v. Champion Bldg.

2007Nelson v. Yellow Cab Co., 343 S.C. 102, 108 , 538 S.E.2d 276, 279 (Ct.App.2000) aff'd 349 S.C. 589 , 564 S.E.2d 110 (2002); Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 45 , 443 S.E.2d 803, 804 (1994); Vines v. Champion Bldg.