substance claim (South Carolina) · Go Syfert
← South Carolina issues

substance claim in South Carolina

8 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1950–2024 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Jody James Farms, Jv v. the Altman Group, Inc. and Laurie Diazgreen
tex · 2018 · cited in 3 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2019–2024
2 sentences

2024See Wilson, 426 S.C. at 343 , 827 S.E.2d at 176 ("When a claim depends on the contract's existence and cannot stand independently—that is, the alleged liability 'arises solely from the contract or must be determined by reference to it'—equity prevents a person from avoiding the arbitration clause that was part of that agreement." (quoting Jody James Farms, JV v. Altman Grp., Inc., 547 S.W.3d 624, 637 (Tex. 2018))); id. ("'[W]hen the substance of the claim arises from general obligations imposed by state law, including statutes, torts and other common law duties, or federal law,' direct-benefit

2024See Wilson, 426 S.C. at 343 , 827 S.E.2d at 176 ("When a claim depends on the contract's existence and cannot stand independently—that is, the alleged liability 'arises solely from the contract or must be determined by reference to it'—equity prevents a person from avoiding the arbitration clause that was part of that agreement." (quoting Jody James Farms, JV v. Altman Grp., Inc., 547 S.W.3d 624, 637 (Tex. 2018))); id. ("'[W]hen the substance of the claim arises from general obligations imposed by state law, including statutes, torts and other common law duties, or federal law,' direct-benefit

23
Wilson v. Willisgreen
sc · 2019 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2023–2024
2 sentences

2024See Wilson, 426 S.C. at 343 , 827 S.E.2d at 176 ("When a claim depends on the contract's existence and cannot stand independently—that is, the alleged liability 'arises solely from the contract or must be determined by reference to it'—equity prevents a person from avoiding the arbitration clause that was part of that agreement." (quoting Jody James Farms, JV v. Altman Grp., Inc., 547 S.W.3d 624, 637 (Tex. 2018))); id. ("'[W]hen the substance of the claim arises from general obligations imposed by state law, including statutes, torts and other common law duties, or federal law,' direct-benefit

2024See Wilson, 426 S.C. at 343 , 827 S.E.2d at 176 ("When a claim depends on the contract's existence and cannot stand independently—that is, the alleged liability 'arises solely from the contract or must be determined by reference to it'—equity prevents a person from avoiding the arbitration clause that was part of that agreement." (quoting Jody James Farms, JV v. Altman Grp., Inc., 547 S.W.3d 624, 637 (Tex. 2018))); id. ("'[W]hen the substance of the claim arises from general obligations imposed by state law, including statutes, torts and other common law duties, or federal law,' direct-benefit

22
Lewis v. Lewisgreen
sc · 2011 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016That description differs from the ordinary standard of reviewing equity cases only by the use of the word “clear.” See Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 390-91 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654-55 (2011) (explaining that in equity appeals there is “a burden on an appellant to satisfy the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the trial court”).

2016That description differs from the ordinary standard of reviewing equity cases only by the use of the word “clear.” See Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 390-91 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 654-55 (2011) (explaining that in equity appeals there is “a burden on an appellant to satisfy the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the trial court”).

11
State v. Austingreen
sc · 1989 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010See State v. Austin, 299 S.C. 456, 458 , 385 S.E.2d 830, 831 (1989) (stating, "[I]f the trial judge refuses to give a specific charge, there is *516 no error if the charge actually given sufficiently covers the substance of the request.").

2010See State v. Austin, 299 S.C. 456, 458 , 385 S.E.2d 830, 831 (1989) (stating, "[I]f the trial judge refuses to give a specific charge, there is *516 no error if the charge actually given sufficiently covers the substance of the request.").

11
Peay v. Mortongreen
tnmd · 1983 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
1 sentence

1988N. Y. 1983) (jurisdiction depends on “the substance of the claim”); Peay v. Morton, 571 F. Supp. 108, 114, 115 (M.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Nienow v. Nienow green
sc · 1977
2 sentences

2016Describing the substance of the rule, the Nienow Court stated “concurrent findings of fact by the trial judge and master are binding on this Court unless they are without evidentiary support or against the clear preponderance of the evidence.” 268 S.C. at 170 , 232 S.E.2d at 509 .

2016Describing the substance of the rule, the Nienow Court stated “concurrent findings of fact by the trial judge and master are binding on this Court unless they are without evidentiary support or against the clear preponderance of the evidence.” 268 S.C. at 170 , 232 S.E.2d at 509 .

12016–2016
State v. Jacobs green
sc · 1961
1 sentence

1973It is apparent that the general charge as to entrapment correctly stated the substance of the defense of entrapment as set forth in State v. Jacobs, supra. The defendants’ defense was entrapment.

11973–1973
Grow v. Industrial Commission green
utah · 1943
2 sentences

1950The doctrine is fully discussed and stated by Mr. Chief Justice Wolfe, of the Utah Supreme Court, concurring specially in the decision in Crow v. Industrial Commission of Utah , 104 Utah 333 , 140 P. (2d) 321 , 148 A.L.R. 316 .

1950The doctrine is fully discussed and stated by Mr. Chief Justice Wolfe, of the Utah Supreme Court, concurring specially in the decision in Crow v. Industrial Commission of Utah , 104 Utah 333 , 140 P. (2d) 321 , 148 A.L.R. 316 .

11950–1950

Where else courts name it

IN 372 (1892–2025) TX 273 (1878–2026) CA 128 (1911–2026) IL 101 (1875–2026) NY 69 (1865–2026) PA 64 (1870–2026) CT 48 (1896–2025) CO 45 (1910–2026) OR 40 (1928–2026) NJ 38 (1950–2026) OH 35 (1900–2026) MI 34 (1892–2025) FL 33 (1946–2026) NC 31 (1931–2025) TN 31 (1907–2017) MO 31 (1867–2025) MA 29 (1895–2024) AL 29 (1897–2025) IA 28 (1871–2026) AZ 25 (1965–2025) OK 24 (1913–2017) MD 24 (1914–2026) MN 22 (1892–2026) MS 22 (1969–2024) ID 22 (1905–2019) GA 21 (1935–2024) WI 19 (1906–2026) WV 18 (1925–2025) WA 17 (1925–2021) KS 17 (1922–2006) VA 15 (1936–2024) LA 14 (1934–2020) ME 14 (1968–2026) NM 14 (1922–2024) NE 14 (1905–2021) UT 13 (1925–2025) DC 10 (1973–2021) KY 10 (1912–2021) ND 10 (1982–2015) AR 10 (1906–2017) SC 8 (1950–2024) DE 8 (1936–2026) NV 7 (1977–2021) VT 7 (1898–2026) RI 7 (1890–2016) HI 6 (1973–2010) SD 6 (1912–2021) NH 4 (1845–2012) WY 4 (1958–2020) AK 3 (1979–2024) MT 3 (1940–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check