8 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Unisys Corp. v. South Carolina Budget & Control Board Division of General Services Information Technology Management Officegreen2 sentences2025Off., 346 S.C. 158, 174 , 551 S.E.2d 263, 272 (2001) ("An adequate de novo review renders harmless a procedural due process violation based on the insufficiency of the lower administrative body."). 3. 2025Off., 346 S.C. 158, 174 , 551 S.E.2d 263, 272 (2001) ("An adequate de novo review renders harmless a procedural due process violation based on the insufficiency of the lower administrative body."). 3. | 4 | 4 |
Harbit v. City of Charlestongreen2 sentences2013See Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law"); Harbit v. City of Charleston, 382 S.C. 383, 394 , 675 S.E.2d 776, 781-82 (Ct. App. 2009) (affirming the circuit court's grant of summary judgment on the appellant's procedural due process claim when the appellant "received three levels of review, in each of which he was allowe 2013See Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law"); Harbit v. City of Charleston, 382 S.C. 383, 394 , 675 S.E.2d 776, 781-82 (Ct. App. 2009) (affirming the circuit court's grant of summary judgment on the appellant's procedural due process claim when the appellant "received three levels of review, in each of which he was allowe | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Treatment & Care of Luckabaughgreen2 sentences2011In re Luckabaugh , 351 S.C. 122, 135 , 568 S.E.2d 338, 344 (2002). "[A]lthough historically limited to criminal prosecutions, [the right to confront one's witnesses] has been applied in the civil context" under a procedural due process analysis. 2011In re Luckabaugh , 351 S.C. 122, 135 , 568 S.E.2d 338, 344 (2002). "[A]lthough historically limited to criminal prosecutions, [the right to confront one's witnesses] has been applied in the civil context" under a procedural due process analysis. | 1 | 1 |
Frame v. Resort Services Inc.green2 sentences2008Inc. , 357 S.C. 520, 531 , 593 S.E.2d 491, 497 (Ct. App. 2004) (When an administrative agency acts without first making the proper factual findings required by law, the proper procedure is to remand the case and allow the agency the opportunity to make those findings.); Fields v. Monroe Ltd. 2008Inc. , 357 S.C. 520, 531 , 593 S.E.2d 491, 497 (Ct. App. 2004) (When an administrative agency acts without first making the proper factual findings required by law, the proper procedure is to remand the case and allow the agency the opportunity to make those findings.); Fields v. Monroe Ltd. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ross v. Medical Univ. of South Carolina
green
2 sentences2024Univ. of South Carolina, 328 S.C. 51 , 492 S.E.2d 62 (1997)). 2024Univ. of South Carolina, 328 S.C. 51 , 492 S.E.2d 62 (1997)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Armstrong v. Manzo
green
2 sentences1997The *540 fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a “meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” South Carolina Nat’l Bank v. Central Carolina Livestock Market Inc., 289 S.C. 309 , 345 S.E.2d 485 (1986) (citing Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965)). 1997The *540 fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a “meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” South Carolina Nat’l Bank v. Central Carolina Livestock Market Inc., 289 S.C. 309 , 345 S.E.2d 485 (1986) (citing Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965)). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
South Carolina National Bank v. Central Carolina Livestock Market, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997The *540 fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a “meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” South Carolina Nat’l Bank v. Central Carolina Livestock Market Inc., 289 S.C. 309 , 345 S.E.2d 485 (1986) (citing Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965)). 1997The *540 fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a “meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” South Carolina Nat’l Bank v. Central Carolina Livestock Market Inc., 289 S.C. 309 , 345 S.E.2d 485 (1986) (citing Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965)). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.