crucial requirement (South Carolina) · Go Syfert
← South Carolina issues

crucial requirement in South Carolina

7 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1941–2010 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Drews Co., Inc. v. LEDWITH-WOLFE ASSOC., INC.green
sc · 1988 · cited in 3 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1992–2010
2 sentences

2006Drews Co., Inc. v. Ledwith-Wolfe Assocs., Inc., 296 S.C. 207 , 371 S.E.2d 532 (1988), offers an erudite and comprehensive analysis of the standards governing recovery of lost profits: The crucial requirement in lost profits determinations is that they be “established with reasonable certainty, for recovery cannot be had for profits that are conjectural or speculative.” South Carolina Finance Corp., supra, at 122, 113 S.E.2d at 336 .

2006Drews Co., Inc. v. Ledwith-Wolfe Assocs., Inc., 296 S.C. 207 , 371 S.E.2d 532 (1988), offers an erudite and comprehensive analysis of the standards governing recovery of lost profits: The crucial requirement in lost profits determinations is that they be “established with reasonable certainty, for recovery cannot be had for profits that are conjectural or speculative.” South Carolina Finance Corp., supra, at 122, 113 S.E.2d at 336 .

13

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 (5)

CaseCitedYears
SC FINANCE CORP. OF ANDERSON v. West Side Finance Co. green
sc · 1960
2 sentences

2006Drews Co., Inc. v. Ledwith-Wolfe Assocs., Inc., 296 S.C. 207 , 371 S.E.2d 532 (1988), offers an erudite and comprehensive analysis of the standards governing recovery of lost profits: The crucial requirement in lost profits determinations is that they be “established with reasonable certainty, for recovery cannot be had for profits that are conjectural or speculative.” South Carolina Finance Corp., supra, at 122, 113 S.E.2d at 336 .

1988The crucial requirement in lost profits determinations is that they be "established with reasonable certainty, for recovery cannot be had for profits that are conjectural or speculative." South Carolina Finance Corp., supra , at 122, 113 S.E. (2d) at 336 .

31988–2006
Adams v. Davison-Paxon Co. green
sc · 1957
1 sentence

1979Adams v. Davison-Paxon, 230 S. C. 532, 96 S. E. (2d) 566 (1957); Boseman v. Pacific Mills, 193 S. C. 479, 8 S. E. (2d) 878 (1940); Marchbanks v. Duke Power Co., 190 S. C. 336, 2 S. E. (2d) 825 (1939).

11979–1979
Boseman v. Pacific Mills green
sc · 1940
1 sentence

1979Adams v. Davison-Paxon, 230 S. C. 532, 96 S. E. (2d) 566 (1957); Boseman v. Pacific Mills, 193 S. C. 479, 8 S. E. (2d) 878 (1940); Marchbanks v. Duke Power Co., 190 S. C. 336, 2 S. E. (2d) 825 (1939).

11979–1979
Marchbanks v. Duke Power Co. green
· 1939
1 sentence

1979Adams v. Davison-Paxon, 230 S. C. 532, 96 S. E. (2d) 566 (1957); Boseman v. Pacific Mills, 193 S. C. 479, 8 S. E. (2d) 878 (1940); Marchbanks v. Duke Power Co., 190 S. C. 336, 2 S. E. (2d) 825 (1939).

11979–1979
Travers v. Jennings green
sc · 1893
1 sentence

1941The rule is laid down in the case of Travers v. Jennings et al., 39 S. C., 410, 17 S. E., 849, 850 , by this Court as follows: “This, it seems to us, ought to be the crucial test in such matters, namely, the adoption, by the party who is required to seal, of something in its stead. * * * if pe jiac] used-sealing wax, and had stamped thereon his notarial seal, or had used sealing wax, and had writ *208 ten his name across the same, or if he had written his name across the flap of the envelope after he had caused it to adhere to the body of the envelope, it seems to us that any one of these meth

11941–1941

Where else courts name it

CA 247 (1906–2026) PA 115 (1920–2026) IL 110 (1895–2026) OH 110 (1899–2025) TX 85 (1964–2025) LA 85 (1968–2026) MI 65 (1908–2025) NY 65 (1889–2025) NC 54 (1904–2026) HI 43 (1955–2025) AL 42 (1921–2015) TN 39 (1910–2020) MA 37 (1975–2025) DC 34 (1982–2026) GA 34 (1907–2023) WA 32 (1970–2021) FL 30 (1974–2026) NJ 28 (1960–2025) IN 27 (1938–2023) MD 22 (1951–2019) AZ 14 (1966–2021) MO 13 (1890–2002) IA 13 (1922–2023) OR 12 (1931–2020) CO 12 (1983–2025) VA 10 (1918–2022) AK 10 (1972–2005) MN 10 (1973–2026) NE 9 (1941–2000) MT 9 (1899–2019) AR 8 (1939–2026) WI 8 (1963–2021) NM 7 (1985–2021) KS 7 (1926–2016) SC 7 (1941–2010) MS 6 (1991–2024) VT 6 (1991–2022) CT 6 (1997–2014) UT 5 (1939–2017) KY 5 (2005–2024) SD 5 (1956–2019) WY 4 (1981–2012) NV 4 (1975–2025) ID 4 (1928–2007) ME 4 (1901–2024) OK 4 (1964–2003) NH 3 (2000–2019) RI 2 (1991–2009) DE 2 (2016–2020) ND 2 (1901–1939)

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