7 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vaught v. Waitesgreen2 sentences2005However, the Supreme Court of South Carolina has also found that “[t]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally considered a rule of ‘policy, convenience and discretion, rather than one of law, and is not jurisdictional,’ ” and “[t]he failure to exhaust administrative remedies goes to the prematurity of a case, not subject matter jurisdiction.” Ward v. State, 343 S.C. 14 , 17 n. 5, 538 S.E.2d 245 , 246 n. 5 (2000) (citing Vaught v. Waites, 300 S.C. 201, 205 , 387 S.E.2d 91, 93 (Ct.App.1989)). 2005However, the Supreme Court of South Carolina has also found that “[t]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally considered a rule of ‘policy, convenience and discretion, rather than one of law, and is not jurisdictional,’ ” and “[t]he failure to exhaust administrative remedies goes to the prematurity of a case, not subject matter jurisdiction.” Ward v. State, 343 S.C. 14 , 17 n. 5, 538 S.E.2d 245 , 246 n. 5 (2000) (citing Vaught v. Waites, 300 S.C. 201, 205 , 387 S.E.2d 91, 93 (Ct.App.1989)). | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ward v. State
green
2 sentences2013As this Court has explained, “[t]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally considered a rule of policy, convenience and discretion, rather than one of law, and is not jurisdictional.” Ward v. State, 343 S.C. 14 , 17 n. 5, 538 S.E.2d 245 , 246 n. 5 (2000) (citations omitted). 2013As this Court has explained, “[t]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally considered a rule of policy, convenience and discretion, rather than one of law, and is not jurisdictional.” Ward v. State, 343 S.C. 14 , 17 n. 5, 538 S.E.2d 245 , 246 n. 5 (2000) (citations omitted). | 3 | 2005–2013 |
Andrews Bearing Corp. v. Brady
green
2 sentences2000"The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally considered a rule of ‘policy, convenience and discretion, rather than one of law, and is not jurisdictional.’ ” Vaught v. Waites, 300 S.C. 201, 205 , 387 S.E.2d 91, 93 (Ct.App.1989) (citing Andrews Bearing Corp. v. Brady, 261 S.C. 533 , 201 S.E.2d 241 (1973)). 2000"The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally considered a rule of ‘policy, convenience and discretion, rather than one of law, and is not jurisdictional.’ ” Vaught v. Waites, 300 S.C. 201, 205 , 387 S.E.2d 91, 93 (Ct.App.1989) (citing Andrews Bearing Corp. v. Brady, 261 S.C. 533 , 201 S.E.2d 241 (1973)). | 2 | 1998–2000 |
Hyde v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health
green
2 sentences2024"Where an adequate administrative remedy is available to determine a question of fact, one must pursue the administrative remedy or be precluded from seeking relief in the courts." Hyde, 314 S.C. at 208 , 442 S.E.2d at 583 . "[T]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally considered a rule of policy, convenience and discretion, rather than one of law, and is not jurisdictional." Cox, 441 S.C. at 218, 893 S.E.2d at 347 (alteration in original) (quoting Storm M.H. ex rel. 2024"Where an adequate administrative remedy is available to determine a question of fact, one must pursue the administrative remedy or be precluded from seeking relief in the courts." Hyde, 314 S.C. at 208 , 442 S.E.2d at 583 . "[T]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally considered a rule of policy, convenience and discretion, rather than one of law, and is not jurisdictional." Cox, 441 S.C. at 218, 893 S.E.2d at 347 (alteration in original) (quoting Storm M.H. ex rel. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Adamson v. Richland County School District One
green
2 sentences2009Adamson, 332 S.C. at 125 , 503 S.E.2d at 754 . 2009Adamson, 332 S.C. at 125 , 503 S.E.2d at 754 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000Further, "[sjubject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.” Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235 , 442 S.E.2d 598 (1994). 2000Further, "[sjubject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.” Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235 , 442 S.E.2d 598 (1994). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ex Parte Allstate Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences1998Co., 248 S.C. 550 , 151 S.E.2d 849 (1966). 1998Co., 248 S.C. 550 , 151 S.E.2d 849 (1966). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.