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 1999–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Stokes Ex Rel. Spell v. Pee Dee Family Physicians, L.L.P.green2 sentences2021Spell v. Pee Dee Family Physicians, L.L.P., 389 S.C. 343, 349 , 699 S.E.2d 143, 146 (2010) (holding that a wrongful death claim "lies in the decedent's estate only when the decedent possessed the right of recovery at his death"); id. at 347 , 699 S.E.2d at 145 ("[I]f the decedent had no claim at his death, the estate has no claim."). 2021Spell v. Pee Dee Family Physicians, L.L.P., 389 S.C. 343, 349 , 699 S.E.2d 143, 146 (2010) (holding that a wrongful death claim "lies in the decedent's estate only when the decedent possessed the right of recovery at his death"); id. at 347 , 699 S.E.2d at 145 ("[I]f the decedent had no claim at his death, the estate has no claim."). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2023See State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579, 583 , 698 S.E.2d 862 , 864 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[A]s the law assumes a curative instruction will remedy an error, failure to accept such a charge when offered, or failure to object to the sufficiency of that charge, renders the issue waived and unpreserved for appellate review."). 2023See State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579, 583 , 698 S.E.2d 862 , 864 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[A]s the law assumes a curative instruction will remedy an error, failure to accept such a charge when offered, or failure to object to the sufficiency of that charge, renders the issue waived and unpreserved for appellate review."). | 1 | 1 |
Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.green2 sentences2016See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding the appellate court need not address remaining issues when its resolution of a prior issue is dispositive). . 2016See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding the appellate court need not address remaining issues when its resolution of a prior issue is dispositive). . | 1 | 1 |
Jimenez v. Daimlerchrysler Corporationgreen1 sentence2014See Jimenez v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 269 F.3d 439 , 452 (4th Cir.2001) (applying South Carolina law) (“Under the crashworthiness doctrine, liability is imposed not for defects that cause collisions but for defects that cause injuries after collisions occur.”). | 1 | 1 |
Berkebile v. Outengreen2 sentences1999Berkebile v. Outen, 311 S.C. 50, 55 , 426 S.E.2d 760, 763 (1993); see also Mullinax, supra. The purpose of requiring the surviving spouse to notify the PR is to notice the estate of the claim. 1999Berkebile v. Outen, 311 S.C. 50, 55 , 426 S.E.2d 760, 763 (1993); see also Mullinax, supra. The purpose of requiring the surviving spouse to notify the PR is to notice the estate of the claim. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Riley v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2015Specifically, as to the new trial nisi additur, the court of appeals stated “the trial court’s mere disagreement with the jury’s determination of the proper amount of [] damages is not a compelling reason for granting additur,” and the court of appeals found it was inappropriate for the trial court to “impose its will on a party by substituting its judgment for that of the jury.” Id. at 19-20 , 757 S.E.2d at 432-33 . 2015Specifically, as to the new trial nisi additur, the court of appeals stated “the trial court’s mere disagreement with the jury’s determination of the proper amount of [] damages is not a compelling reason for granting additur,” and the court of appeals found it was inappropriate for the trial court to “impose its will on a party by substituting its judgment for that of the jury.” Id. at 19-20 , 757 S.E.2d at 432-33 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.