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 2 courts 1941–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Trapp v. South Carolina Boardgreen2 sentences2024Beach Election Comm'n, 363 S.C. 8, 12 , 609 S.E.2d 500, 502 (2005) ("Our review does not extend to findings of fact unless those findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence."); Fielding v. South Carolina Election Comm'n, 305 S.C. 313, 317 , 408 S.E.2d 232, 234 (1991) ("Every reasonable presumption in favor of sustaining a contested election will be employed and irregularities or illegalities which do not appear to have affected the result of the election will not be allowed to overturn it."); Trapp v. South Carolina Bd. of State Canvassers, 273 S.C. 163, 169 , 255 S.E.2d 670, 673 (1979) (h 2024Beach Election Comm'n, 363 S.C. 8, 12 , 609 S.E.2d 500, 502 (2005) ("Our review does not extend to findings of fact unless those findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence."); Fielding v. South Carolina Election Comm'n, 305 S.C. 313, 317 , 408 S.E.2d 232, 234 (1991) ("Every reasonable presumption in favor of sustaining a contested election will be employed and irregularities or illegalities which do not appear to have affected the result of the election will not be allowed to overturn it."); Trapp v. South Carolina Bd. of State Canvassers, 273 S.C. 163, 169 , 255 S.E.2d 670, 673 (1979) (h | 1 | 1 |
Fielding v. South Carolina Election Commissiongreen2 sentences2024Beach Election Comm'n, 363 S.C. 8, 12 , 609 S.E.2d 500, 502 (2005) ("Our review does not extend to findings of fact unless those findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence."); Fielding v. South Carolina Election Comm'n, 305 S.C. 313, 317 , 408 S.E.2d 232, 234 (1991) ("Every reasonable presumption in favor of sustaining a contested election will be employed and irregularities or illegalities which do not appear to have affected the result of the election will not be allowed to overturn it."); Trapp v. South Carolina Bd. of State Canvassers, 273 S.C. 163, 169 , 255 S.E.2d 670, 673 (1979) (h 2024Beach Election Comm'n, 363 S.C. 8, 12 , 609 S.E.2d 500, 502 (2005) ("Our review does not extend to findings of fact unless those findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence."); Fielding v. South Carolina Election Comm'n, 305 S.C. 313, 317 , 408 S.E.2d 232, 234 (1991) ("Every reasonable presumption in favor of sustaining a contested election will be employed and irregularities or illegalities which do not appear to have affected the result of the election will not be allowed to overturn it."); Trapp v. South Carolina Bd. of State Canvassers, 273 S.C. 163, 169 , 255 S.E.2d 670, 673 (1979) (h | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Town of Atlantic Beach Election Commissiongreen2 sentences2024Beach Election Comm'n, 363 S.C. 8, 12 , 609 S.E.2d 500, 502 (2005) ("Our review does not extend to findings of fact unless those findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence."); Fielding v. South Carolina Election Comm'n, 305 S.C. 313, 317 , 408 S.E.2d 232, 234 (1991) ("Every reasonable presumption in favor of sustaining a contested election will be employed and irregularities or illegalities which do not appear to have affected the result of the election will not be allowed to overturn it."); Trapp v. South Carolina Bd. of State Canvassers, 273 S.C. 163, 169 , 255 S.E.2d 670, 673 (1979) (h 2024Beach Election Comm'n, 363 S.C. 8, 12 , 609 S.E.2d 500, 502 (2005) ("Our review does not extend to findings of fact unless those findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence."); Fielding v. South Carolina Election Comm'n, 305 S.C. 313, 317 , 408 S.E.2d 232, 234 (1991) ("Every reasonable presumption in favor of sustaining a contested election will be employed and irregularities or illegalities which do not appear to have affected the result of the election will not be allowed to overturn it."); Trapp v. South Carolina Bd. of State Canvassers, 273 S.C. 163, 169 , 255 S.E.2d 670, 673 (1979) (h | 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 |
|---|---|---|
White v. McKnight
green
2 sentences1962The remedy first invoked of tort, based on alleged fraud in the breach of the contract, or upon trespass, was a mistaken remedy, due to the law that where .permission to enter is granted, condemnation proceedings and not a suit for trespass is the proper remedy. “ ‘In such case the invocation of the one remedy is not an election which will bar the other, unless the suit upon the remedy first invoked shall reach the stage of final adjudication, * * * or unless by the invocation of 'the remedy first sought to be enforced, the plaintiff shall have gained an advantage thereby or caused detriment o 1941The remedy first invoked of tort, based on alleged fraud in the breach of the contract,-or upon trespass, was a mistaken remedy, due to the law that where permission to enter is granted, condemnation proceedings .and not a. suit for trespass is the proper remedy. , - - - “In such case the -invocation of the one remedy is not an election which will bar the other,, unless the suit upon the remedy first invoked shall reach the stage o-f. final adjudication, *. • * * or unless by the invocation of the remedy first sought to be enforced, the plaintiff, shall have gained an advantage thereby- or cau | 2 | 1941–1962 |
Ebner v. Haverty Furniture Co.
green
2 sentences1962The remedy first invoked of tort, based on alleged fraud in the breach of the contract, or upon trespass, was a mistaken remedy, due to the law that where .permission to enter is granted, condemnation proceedings and not a suit for trespass is the proper remedy. “ ‘In such case the invocation of the one remedy is not an election which will bar the other, unless the suit upon the remedy first invoked shall reach the stage of final adjudication, * * * or unless by the invocation of 'the remedy first sought to be enforced, the plaintiff shall have gained an advantage thereby or caused detriment o 1941The remedy first invoked of tort, based on alleged fraud in the breach of the contract,-or upon trespass, was a mistaken remedy, due to the law that where permission to enter is granted, condemnation proceedings .and not a. suit for trespass is the proper remedy. , - - - “In such case the -invocation of the one remedy is not an election which will bar the other,, unless the suit upon the remedy first invoked shall reach the stage o-f. final adjudication, *. • * * or unless by the invocation of the remedy first sought to be enforced, the plaintiff, shall have gained an advantage thereby- or cau | 2 | 1941–1962 |
Nettles v. Sottile
neutral
2 sentences1962The remedy first invoked of tort, based on alleged fraud in the breach of the contract, or upon trespass, was a mistaken remedy, due to the law that where .permission to enter is granted, condemnation proceedings and not a suit for trespass is the proper remedy. “ ‘In such case the invocation of the one remedy is not an election which will bar the other, unless the suit upon the remedy first invoked shall reach the stage of final adjudication, * * * or unless by the invocation of 'the remedy first sought to be enforced, the plaintiff shall have gained an advantage thereby or caused detriment o 1941The remedy first invoked of tort, based on alleged fraud in the breach of the contract,-or upon trespass, was a mistaken remedy, due to the law that where permission to enter is granted, condemnation proceedings .and not a. suit for trespass is the proper remedy. , - - - “In such case the -invocation of the one remedy is not an election which will bar the other,, unless the suit upon the remedy first invoked shall reach the stage o-f. final adjudication, *. • * * or unless by the invocation of the remedy first sought to be enforced, the plaintiff, shall have gained an advantage thereby- or cau | 2 | 1941–1962 |
Green v. City of Columbia
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Chapman v. Hoage
green
2 sentences1987See Lancaster v. Smithco, Inc., supra, (a mistaken choice of a fancied remedy on a certain state of facts is not such an election as will bar the subsequent pursuit of another remedy that is appropriate to the same state of facts); Tate v. Estate of Dickens, 276 App. Div. 94 , 98, 93 N.Y.S. (2d) 504, 509 (1949) (a fruitless prosecution of a third party action by an injured employee is not an election of remedies that barred the employee from workers’ compensation since the “fact that claimant sought to avail himself of a remedy denied to him by law does not warrant the conclusion that because 1987See Lancaster v. Smithco, Inc., supra, (a mistaken choice of a fancied remedy on a certain state of facts is not such an election as will bar the subsequent pursuit of another remedy that is appropriate to the same state of facts); Tate v. Estate of Dickens, 276 App. Div. 94 , 98, 93 N.Y.S. (2d) 504, 509 (1949) (a fruitless prosecution of a third party action by an injured employee is not an election of remedies that barred the employee from workers’ compensation since the “fact that claimant sought to avail himself of a remedy denied to him by law does not warrant the conclusion that because | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Hyder v. Edwards
neutral
1 sentence1978The Petitioners-Defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) present three basic arguments in their motion for summary judgment: (1) Whether the failure of the plaintiff to contest the result of the general election held November 2, 1976, which submitted new Article X for the approval of the electorate, before the State Board of Canvassers, precludes him from contesting the election at this time? *509 (2) Whether the decision of this Court in Hyder v. Edwards, 269 S. C. 138, 236 S. E. (2d) 561 (1977) constitutes res judicata with respect to the validity of the adoption of new Article | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Jones v. South Carolina Power Co.
green
1 sentence1962In the case of Jones v. South Carolina Power Company, 191 S. C. 419, 4 S. E. (2d) 625 , it appears that the plaintiff had granted to the defendant a right of way to construct an electric transmission line over a strip of land. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
LAFITTE v. Tucker
green
1 sentence1959He relies upon such authorities as Lafitte v. Tucker, 216 S. C. 201, 57 S. E. (2d) 255 , which unquestionably establish the principle that the mistaken choice of a fancied remedy on a certain state of facts is not such an election as will bar subsequent pursuit of another remedy which is appropriate to the same state of facts. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.