set forth standard in South Carolina

2011In Rayfield v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 297 S.C. 95, 103 , 374 S.E.2d 910, 914 (Ct.App.1988), cert. denied, 298 S.C. 204 , 379 S.E.2d 133 (1989), this court set forth the analysis to apply when determining whether a statute creates a duty whose breach allows for a private right of action: In order to show that the defendant owes him a duty of care arising from a statute, the plaintiff must show two things: (1) that the essential purpose of the statute is to protect from the kind of harm the plaintiff has suffered; and (2) that he is a member of the class of persons the statute

2011In Rayfield v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 297 S.C. 95, 103 , 374 S.E.2d 910, 914 (Ct.App.1988), cert. denied, 298 S.C. 204 , 379 S.E.2d 133 (1989), this court set forth the analysis to apply when determining whether a statute creates a duty whose breach allows for a private right of action: In order to show that the defendant owes him a duty of care arising from a statute, the plaintiff must show two things: (1) that the essential purpose of the statute is to protect from the kind of harm the plaintiff has suffered; and (2) that he is a member of the class of persons the statute

2009In its opinion in Settlemeyer , this Court set forth the standard of review as follows: “In an action in equity, tried by the judge alone[ ] ... this Court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its views of the preponderance of the evidence.” Settlemeyer, 359 S.C. at 320 , 596 S.E.2d at 516 .

2009In its opinion in Settlemeyer , this Court set forth the standard of review as follows: “In an action in equity, tried by the judge alone[ ] ... this Court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its views of the preponderance of the evidence.” Settlemeyer, 359 S.C. at 320 , 596 S.E.2d at 516 .

2003The same principle is espoused in Logan v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line R.R., 82 S.C. 518 , 64 S.E. 515 (1909): “Where an agent is sued, and, after trial on the merits, the issue is determined against the plaintiff, the principal, though not a party to the suit, can avail himself of the judgment as a bar, when sued by the same plaintiff on the same cause of action.” Id. at 523 , 64 S.E. at 516 .

2003The same principle is espoused in Logan v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line R.R., 82 S.C. 518 , 64 S.E. 515 (1909): “Where an agent is sued, and, after trial on the merits, the issue is determined against the plaintiff, the principal, though not a party to the suit, can avail himself of the judgment as a bar, when sued by the same plaintiff on the same cause of action.” Id. at 523 , 64 S.E. at 516 .

2003The court set forth the principle that “[a] judgment on the merits in favor of the agent is a bar to an action against the principal for the same cause, because the principal’s liability is predicated upon that of the agent.” Id. at 192 , 65 S.E. at 1047 .

2003The court set forth the principle that “[a] judgment on the merits in favor of the agent is a bar to an action against the principal for the same cause, because the principal’s liability is predicated upon that of the agent.” Id. at 192 , 65 S.E. at 1047 .

1996The motion should be granted where a jury would be speculating as to the accused’s guilt, Brown, 267 S.C. at 316 , 227 S.E. (2d) at 677 , or where the evidence is sufficient only to raise a strong suspicion of guilt.

1996The motion should be granted where a jury would be speculating as to the accused’s guilt, Brown, 267 S.C. at 316 , 227 S.E. (2d) at 677 , or where the evidence is sufficient only to raise a strong suspicion of guilt.

1993Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 , 111 S.Ct. 1032 , 113 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991), this Court set forth the rule requiring trial judges to make a post-trial review to determine whether a punitive award withstands constitutional challenge.

1993Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 , 111 S.Ct. 1032 , 113 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991), this Court set forth the rule requiring trial judges to make a post-trial review to determine whether a punitive award withstands constitutional challenge.

1990In State v. King, 158 S. C. 251, 155 S. E. 409 (1930), this Court set forth the rule that where the offenses of murder and manslaughter were submitted, the jury must be instructed to resolve any doubt about murder in favor of the lesser offense.

1974In State v. Amerson, 244 S. C. 374, 137 S. E. (2d) 284 (1964), this Court set forth a test for determining whether a verdict is inconsistent.

1957The affidavits submitted showed very clearly that there was no ground for suspicion, even, that any member of the jury had been subjected to improper influence.” In the case of McGill Bros. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 75 S. C. 177, 55 S. E. 216, 217 , this court set forth the rule by which a trial Judge should be governed in passing upon matters involving the misconduct of jurors.