7 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holcombe v. Hardeegreen2 sentences2022See Sanders v. Smith, 431 S.C. 605 , 611, 848 S.E.2d 604 , 607 (Ct. App. 2020) ("The family court has discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b) and [an appellate court] review[s] such decisions using an abuse of discretion standard."); Rule 60(b)(1) ("On motion and upon such terms as are just, the [family] court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."); Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 646-47 , 506 S.E.2d 526, 535 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[W]hen an order from t 2022See Sanders v. Smith, 431 S.C. 605 , 611, 848 S.E.2d 604 , 607 (Ct. App. 2020) ("The family court has discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b) and [an appellate court] review[s] such decisions using an abuse of discretion standard."); Rule 60(b)(1) ("On motion and upon such terms as are just, the [family] court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."); Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 646-47 , 506 S.E.2d 526, 535 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[W]hen an order from t | 1 | 1 |
Rouvet v. Rouvetgreen2 sentences2022See Sanders v. Smith, 431 S.C. 605 , 611, 848 S.E.2d 604 , 607 (Ct. App. 2020) ("The family court has discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b) and [an appellate court] review[s] such decisions using an abuse of discretion standard."); Rule 60(b)(1) ("On motion and upon such terms as are just, the [family] court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."); Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 646-47 , 506 S.E.2d 526, 535 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[W]hen an order from t 2022See Sanders v. Smith, 431 S.C. 605 , 611, 848 S.E.2d 604 , 607 (Ct. App. 2020) ("The family court has discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b) and [an appellate court] review[s] such decisions using an abuse of discretion standard."); Rule 60(b)(1) ("On motion and upon such terms as are just, the [family] court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."); Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 646-47 , 506 S.E.2d 526, 535 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[W]hen an order from t | 1 | 1 |
Griffith v. Griffithgreen2 sentences2022See Sanders v. Smith, 431 S.C. 605 , 611, 848 S.E.2d 604 , 607 (Ct. App. 2020) ("The family court has discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b) and [an appellate court] review[s] such decisions using an abuse of discretion standard."); Rule 60(b)(1) ("On motion and upon such terms as are just, the [family] court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."); Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 646-47 , 506 S.E.2d 526, 535 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[W]hen an order from t 2022See Sanders v. Smith, 431 S.C. 605 , 611, 848 S.E.2d 604 , 607 (Ct. App. 2020) ("The family court has discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b) and [an appellate court] review[s] such decisions using an abuse of discretion standard."); Rule 60(b)(1) ("On motion and upon such terms as are just, the [family] court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."); Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 646-47 , 506 S.E.2d 526, 535 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[W]hen an order from t | 1 | 1 |
Terry v. Terrygreen2 sentences2020See Terry v. Terry, 400 S.C. 453 , 456–57, 734 S.E.2d 646, 648 (2012) ("A temporary order of the family court is without prejudice to the rights of the parties. 2020See Terry v. Terry, 400 S.C. 453 , 456–57, 734 S.E.2d 646, 648 (2012) ("A temporary order of the family court is without prejudice to the rights of the parties. | 1 | 1 |
Perry v. Heirs at Law of Gadsdengreen2 sentences2005See Perry v. Heirs at Law of Gadsden , 357 S.C. 42, 48 , 590 S.E.2d 502, 505 (Ct. App. 2003)(citations omitted) ([A]lthough motions under Rule 60(b)(5) are not subject to the requirement that they be filed within one year of the judgment, they still must be filed within a reasonable time. 2005See Perry v. Heirs at Law of Gadsden , 357 S.C. 42, 48 , 590 S.E.2d 502, 505 (Ct. App. 2003)(citations omitted) ([A]lthough motions under Rule 60(b)(5) are not subject to the requirement that they be filed within one year of the judgment, they still must be filed within a reasonable time. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martin v. Martin
green
1 sentence2011Id. at 439, 373 S.E.2d at 708 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Smith v. Smith
green
2 sentences2011In Smith , the husband had already received a lump sum of his retirement benefits and was receiving monthly benefits at the time of the divorce hearing. 308 S.C. at 373 , 418 S.E.2d at 315 . 2011In Smith , the husband had already received a lump sum of his retirement benefits and was receiving monthly benefits at the time of the divorce hearing. 308 S.C. at 373 , 418 S.E.2d at 315 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ullah v. Ullah
green
2 sentences2003Noting that the issue was a *526 novel one in South Carolina, the family court found the lottery proceeds were marital property, applied the New York case of Ullah v. Ullah, 161 A.D.2d 699 , 555 N.Y.S.2d 834 (N.Y.App. 2003Noting that the issue was a *526 novel one in South Carolina, the family court found the lottery proceeds were marital property, applied the New York case of Ullah v. Ullah, 161 A.D.2d 699 , 555 N.Y.S.2d 834 (N.Y.App. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Odom v. Burch
neutral
1 sentence1981Since no appeal lies from a default judgment in the absence of statutory provision or radical defect in the judgment, Gadsden v. Home Fertilizer and Chemical Co., 89 S. C. 483, 72 S. E. 15 (1911); Odom v. Burch, 52 S. C. 305, 29 S. E. 726 (1897), a defendant is estopped from thereafter challenging the judgment and is not entitled to take further steps in the cause affecting the plaintiff’s cause of action, except to attempt to set aside the judgmtnt. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Gadsden v. Home Fertilizer & Chemical Co.
green
1 sentence1981Since no appeal lies from a default judgment in the absence of statutory provision or radical defect in the judgment, Gadsden v. Home Fertilizer and Chemical Co., 89 S. C. 483, 72 S. E. 15 (1911); Odom v. Burch, 52 S. C. 305, 29 S. E. 726 (1897), a defendant is estopped from thereafter challenging the judgment and is not entitled to take further steps in the cause affecting the plaintiff’s cause of action, except to attempt to set aside the judgmtnt. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Westmoreland
neutral
1 sentence1973State v. Westmoreland, 76 S. C. 145, 56 S. E. 673 , 8 L. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.