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.
7 South Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dickert v. Dickertgreen2 sentences2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons 2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons | 4 | 4 |
Glasscock v. Glasscockgreen2 sentences2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons 2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons | 3 | 3 |
Edm v. Tamgreen2 sentences2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons 2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons | 3 | 3 |
Chisholm v. Chisholmgreen2 sentences2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons 2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons | 2 | 2 |
State v. Evansgreen2 sentences2022See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors in a case that required "a great deal of time and energy to assess"); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be cons 2020See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be considered: (1) the party's ability to pay [his] own attorney's fee; (2) | 2 | 2 |
Bodkin v. Bodkingreen2 sentences2023See Bodkin, 388 S.C. at 223 , 694 S.E.2d at 241 . ("[W]hen parties fail to cooperate and their behavior prolongs proceedings, this is a basis for holding them responsible for attorney's fees."). 2023See Bodkin, 388 S.C. at 223 , 694 S.E.2d at 241 . ("[W]hen parties fail to cooperate and their behavior prolongs proceedings, this is a basis for holding them responsible for attorney's fees."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Richburggreen1 sentence2020See Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, 10-11 , 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not err by awarding attorney's fees and costs because the court properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510 , 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) ("[The appellate court] review[s] the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo."); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be considered: (1) the party's ability to pay [his] own attorney's fee; (2) | 1 | 1 |
Griffith v. Griffithgreen2 sentences2012See Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 646 , 506 S.E.2d 526 , 534- 35 (Ct. App. 1998) (noting the family court order awarding attorney's fees must set forth specific findings of fact for each of the required factors). 2012See Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 646 , 506 S.E.2d 526 , 534- 35 (Ct. App. 1998) (noting the family court order awarding attorney's fees must set forth specific findings of fact for each of the required factors). | 1 | 1 |
High v. Highgreen2 sentences2011As to whether the family court erred by awarding Wife $4,504.62 in attorney's fees in connection to Wife's motion to compel, we find no error.[1] See High v. High , 389 S.C. 226, 249 , 697 S.E.2d 690, 702 (Ct. App. 2010) (providing the award of attorney's fees in a domestic action rests within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion); Dickert v. Dickert , 387 S.C. 1 , 10–11, 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees when it properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock fac 2011As to whether the family court erred by awarding Wife $4,504.62 in attorney's fees in connection to Wife's motion to compel, we find no error.[1] See High v. High , 389 S.C. 226, 249 , 697 S.E.2d 690, 702 (Ct. App. 2010) (providing the award of attorney's fees in a domestic action rests within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion); Dickert v. Dickert , 387 S.C. 1 , 10–11, 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) (holding the family court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees when it properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock fac | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Feldman v. Feldman
green
2 sentences2013In adjudicating Father’s claim for attorney’s fees, the family court held “... the award of [Father’s attorney’s fees is appropriate, and considering the factors enunciated in Feldman v. Feldman, 380 S.C. 538 , 670 S.E.2d 669 (Ct.App.2008) I order [Mother] to reimburse [Father] his attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,500.00, payable directly to [Father’s attorney at a rate of $400.00 per month.” In Feldman , this court outlined the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors listed above. 2013In adjudicating Father’s claim for attorney’s fees, the family court held “... the award of [Father’s attorney’s fees is appropriate, and considering the factors enunciated in Feldman v. Feldman, 380 S.C. 538 , 670 S.E.2d 669 (Ct.App.2008) I order [Mother] to reimburse [Father] his attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,500.00, payable directly to [Father’s attorney at a rate of $400.00 per month.” In Feldman , this court outlined the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors listed above. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.