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 2 courts 2001–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
St. Andrews Public Service District v. City of Charlestongreen2 sentences2018Andrews Public Service District, 349 S.C. at 605 , 564 S.E.2d at 648 (overruling the Quinn rule that a stranger to an annexation may challenge the annexation if the ordinance is "absolutely void"). 2018Andrews Public Service District, 349 S.C. at 605 , 564 S.E.2d at 648 (overruling the Quinn rule that a stranger to an annexation may challenge the annexation if the ordinance is "absolutely void"). | 2 | 2 |
City of Camden v. Fairfield Electric Cooperative, Inc.green2 sentences2008Co-op., Inc. , 372 S.C. 543, 643 S.E.2d 687 (2007), the supreme court affirmed the application of the definition of premises from section 58-27-610(2) to the annexation exception. 2008Co-op., Inc. , 372 S.C. 543, 643 S.E.2d 687 (2007), the supreme court affirmed the application of the definition of premises from section 58-27-610(2) to the annexation exception. | 1 | 2 |
Duke Power Co. v. Laurens Electric Cooperative, Inc.green2 sentences2003These exceptions, the annexation exception and the principal supplier exception, are found in the following language from the RECA: *574 [T]he act of incorporating or annexing into a city or town an area in which the cooperative is serving shall constitute the consent of the governing body of such city or town for the cooperative to continue serving all premises then being served and to serve additional premises within such area until such time as the governing body of the city or town shall direct otherwise and such cooperative is empowered to so serve, but it shall not extend service to any 2003These exceptions, the annexation exception and the principal supplier exception, are found in the following language from the RECA: *574 [T]he act of incorporating or annexing into a city or town an area in which the cooperative is serving shall constitute the consent of the governing body of such city or town for the cooperative to continue serving all premises then being served and to serve additional premises within such area until such time as the governing body of the city or town shall direct otherwise and such cooperative is empowered to so serve, but it shall not extend service to any | 1 | 1 |
Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Town of Pagelandgreen2 sentences2003See § 33-49-250(1); Carolina Power, 321 S.C. at 543 , 471 S.E.2d at 140 (“[T]he intent of the [Legislature in adopting the annexation exception was to permit co-ops to continue to serve existing customers and not require ouster of a co-op due solely to a city’s annexation.”). 2003See § 33-49-250(1); Carolina Power, 321 S.C. at 543 , 471 S.E.2d at 140 (“[T]he intent of the [Legislature in adopting the annexation exception was to permit co-ops to continue to serve existing customers and not require ouster of a co-op due solely to a city’s annexation.”). | 1 | 1 |
City of Abbeville v. Aiken Electric Cooperative, Inc.green2 sentences2001See also Abbeville, 287 S.C. at 369 , 338 S.E.2d at 835 . 2001See also Abbeville, 287 S.C. at 369 , 338 S.E.2d at 835 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Newberry v. Newberry Electric Cooperative, Inc.
green
1 sentence2008Id. (quoting S.C. Code Ann. § 33-49-250(1)). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. McKnight
green
1 sentence2007As noted in City of Newberry, “although the annexation exception also implies consent for cooperatives to serve additional premises, i.e., new customers, within an annexed area, the statute expressly limits a cooperative’s authority to provide new or increased service by allowing it only until such time as the governing body of the city or town shall direct otherwise....” 352 S.C. at 576 , 575 S.E.2d at 86. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Quinn v. City of Columbia
red
1 sentence2002Despite the lack of statutory standing, the Court of Appeals found respondent had standing under our decision in Quinn v. City of Columbia, supra. In Quinn , we adopted a rule that permitted a “stranger” to the annexation to challenge that proceeding if the annexation ordinance was “ ‘absolutely void’, i.e. not authorized by law....” Id. at 407 , 401 S.E.2d at 166-167 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.