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.
9 South Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Abate v. Abategreen2 sentences2025See Abate v. Abate, 377 S.C. 548, 553 , 660 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 2008) (finding a party seeking a contempt finding for violation of a court order must show the order's existence and facts establishing the other party did not comply with the order). 2025See Abate v. Abate, 377 S.C. 548, 553 , 660 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 2008) (finding a party seeking a contempt finding for violation of a court order must show the order's existence and facts establishing the other party did not comply with the order). | 8 | 8 |
Noojin v. Noojingreen2 sentences2023"A party seeking a contempt finding for violation of a court order must show the order's existence and facts establishing the other party did not comply with the order." Noojin v. Noojin, 417 S.C. 300, 306 , 789 S.E.2d 769, 772 (Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Abate v. Abate, 377 S.C. 548, 553 , 660 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 2008)). 2023"A party seeking a contempt finding for violation of a court order must show the order's existence and facts establishing the other party did not comply with the order." Noojin v. Noojin, 417 S.C. 300, 306 , 789 S.E.2d 769, 772 (Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Abate v. Abate, 377 S.C. 548, 553 , 660 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 2008)). | 1 | 2 |
Hawkins v. Mullinsgreen2 sentences2023"In a proceeding for contempt for violation of a court order, the moving party must show the existence of a court order and the facts establishing the respondent's noncompliance with the order." Hawkins, 359 S.C. at 501 , 597 S.E.2d at 899 . 2023"In a proceeding for contempt for violation of a court order, the moving party must show the existence of a court order and the facts establishing the respondent's noncompliance with the order." Hawkins, 359 S.C. at 501 , 597 S.E.2d at 899 . | 1 | 2 |
DiMarco v. DiMarcogreen2 sentences2021"Civil contempt must be shown by clear and convincing evidence." DiMarco v. DiMarco, 393 S.C. 604, 607 , 713 S.E.2d 631, 633 (2011). 2021"Civil contempt must be shown by clear and convincing evidence." DiMarco v. DiMarco, 393 S.C. 604, 607 , 713 S.E.2d 631, 633 (2011). | 1 | 2 |
Eaddy v. Olivergreen2 sentences2019"Once the movant makes a prima facie showing by pleading an order and demonstrating noncompliance, 'the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply.'" Id. at 307, 789 S.E.2d at 772 (quoting Eady v. Oliver, 345 S.C. 39, 42 , 545 S.E.2d 830, 832 (Ct. App. 2001)). 2019"Once the movant makes a prima facie showing by pleading an order and demonstrating noncompliance, 'the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply.'" Id. at 307, 789 S.E.2d at 772 (quoting Eady v. Oliver, 345 S.C. 39, 42 , 545 S.E.2d 830, 832 (Ct. App. 2001)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tirado v. Tirado
green
1 sentence2019"A party seeking a contempt finding for violation of a court order must show the order's existence and facts establishing the other party did not comply with the order." Id. (quoting Abate v. Abate, 377 S.C. 548, 553 , 660 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 2008)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.