7 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commercial Credit Loans, Inc. v. Riddlegreen1 sentence2004Indeed, Commercial Credit recognizes “the policy of this state to limit the life of a judgment to ten years” and further asserts the ten-year “enforcement period cannot be tolled.” Id. at 185, 183 , 512 S.E.2d at 128, 127 . 2 *237 Home Port additionally cites a number of cases which allow the tolling of a statute of limitations under a variety of circumstances involving the application of the discovery rule 3 to a potential cause of action, but none applies the discovery rule to delay or interrupt the running of the ten-year enforcement period in section 15-39-30 after entry of the judgment in | 1 | 1 |
Garrison v. Owensgreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Garrison, 258 S.C. at 446-47 , 189 S.E.2d at 33 . 2004See, e.g., Garrison, 258 S.C. at 446-47 , 189 S.E.2d at 33 . | 1 | 1 |
Jane Roe v. Jane Doe John Doegreen2 sentences1999Roe, 28 F.3d at 408 (footnotes omitted). 5 We hold “objective verifiability” is required for the application of the discovery rule. 1999Roe, 28 F.3d at 408 (footnotes omitted). [5] We hold "objective verifiability" is required for the application of the discovery rule. | 1 | 1 |
Ault v. Jaskogreen2 sentences1999See Ault v. Jasko, 70 Ohio St.3d 114 , 637 N.E.2d 870 (1994). 1999See Ault v. Jasko, 70 Ohio St.3d 114 , 637 N.E.2d 870 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Shortgreen2 sentences1998See, e.g., Anderson v. Short, 323 S.C. 522 , 476 S.E.2d 475 (1996); Preer, 323 S.C. 516 , 476 S.E.2d 472 . 1998See, e.g., Anderson v. Short, 323 S.C. 522 , 476 S.E.2d 475 (1996); Preer, 323 S.C. 516 , 476 S.E.2d 472 . | 1 | 1 |
Santee Portland Cement Co. v. Daniel International Corp.green2 sentences1997Though the provision specifically references the payment of liability limits as a condition under which the UIM earner has the right to assume control of the defense for its own benefit, this is not dispositive of its exclusivity. “[T]he inclusion of certain provi sions in a statute may be some evidence that the exclusion of others was purposeful, but the weight accorded this evidence may vary.” Santee Portland Cement v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 299 S.C. 269, 273 , 384 S.E.2d 693, 695 (1989) (rejecting the contention the legislature intended to limit the application of the discovery rule under § 15 1997Though the provision specifically references the payment of liability limits as a condition under which the UIM earner has the right to assume control of the defense for its own benefit, this is not dispositive of its exclusivity. “[T]he inclusion of certain provi sions in a statute may be some evidence that the exclusion of others was purposeful, but the weight accorded this evidence may vary.” Santee Portland Cement v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 299 S.C. 269, 273 , 384 S.E.2d 693, 695 (1989) (rejecting the contention the legislature intended to limit the application of the discovery rule under § 15 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Epstein v. Brown
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 384 , 610 S.E.2d at 822 . 2016Id. at 384 , 610 S.E.2d at 822 . | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Hinson v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000However, in the context of a latent occupational disease, the District Court for the District of South Carolina considered the application of the statute of limitations in Hinson v. Owens-Illinois Inc., 677 F.Supp. 406 (D.S.C.1987). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Vestal v. Yonkers Contracting Co.
green
1 sentence2000In Johnson v. Exxon Corp., 258 A.D.2d 946 , 685 N.Y.S.2d 530 (1999), a New York appellate court addressed the application of the discovery rule, as construed in Wetherill, in the context of an action for work-related injuries allegedly sustained from toxic exposure. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Preer v. Mims
green
2 sentences1998See, e.g., Anderson v. Short, 323 S.C. 522 , 476 S.E.2d 475 (1996); Preer, 323 S.C. 516 , 476 S.E.2d 472 . 1998See, e.g., Anderson v. Short, 323 S.C. 522 , 476 S.E.2d 475 (1996); Preer, 323 S.C. 516 , 476 S.E.2d 472 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Atlas Food Systems & Services, Inc. v. Crane National Vendors Division of Unidynamics Corp.
green
2 sentences1997Vendors, 319 S.C. 556 , 462 S.E.2d 858 (1995). 1997Vendors, 319 S.C. 556 , 462 S.E.2d 858 (1995). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.