7 South Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Moser v. Gosnellgreen2 sentences2012As to the trial court's finding that the settlement proceeds were from the disposition of the collateral: Moser v. Gosnell, 334 S.C. 425, 430 , 513 S.E.2d 123, 125 (Ct. App. 1999) ("In construing the terms of a contract, the foremost rule is that the court must give effect to the intentions of the parties by looking to the language of the contract."); see generally Brown v. First Nat'l Bank of Dewey, 617 F.2d 581, 584 (10th Cir. 1980) (equating voluntary and involuntary dispositions of collateral in regard to insurance proceeds). 4. 2012As to the trial court's finding that the settlement proceeds were from the disposition of the collateral: Moser v. Gosnell, 334 S.C. 425, 430 , 513 S.E.2d 123, 125 (Ct. App. 1999) ("In construing the terms of a contract, the foremost rule is that the court must give effect to the intentions of the parties by looking to the language of the contract."); see generally Brown v. First Nat'l Bank of Dewey, 617 F.2d 581, 584 (10th Cir. 1980) (equating voluntary and involuntary dispositions of collateral in regard to insurance proceeds). 4. | 3 | 3 |
Dorman v. Allstate Insurancegreen2 sentences2020Co., 332 S.C. 176, 178 , 504 S.E.2d 127, 129 (Ct. App. 1998). 2020Co., 332 S.C. 176, 178 , 504 S.E.2d 127, 129 (Ct. App. 1998). | 2 | 2 |
Conner v. Alvarezgreen2 sentences2008Although whereas clauses typically describe the background leading to a contract, the foremost rule of contract interpretation is that courts “must give effect to the intentions of the parties by looking to the language of the contract.” Moser v. Gosnell, *476 334 S.C. 425, 430 , 513 S.E.2d 123, 125 (Ct.App.1999) (citing Conner v. Alvarez, 285 S.C. 97, 101 , 328 S.E.2d 334, 336 (1985)); see Superior Auto. 2008Although whereas clauses typically describe the background leading to a contract, the foremost rule of contract interpretation is that courts “must give effect to the intentions of the parties by looking to the language of the contract.” Moser v. Gosnell, *476 334 S.C. 425, 430 , 513 S.E.2d 123, 125 (Ct.App.1999) (citing Conner v. Alvarez, 285 S.C. 97, 101 , 328 S.E.2d 334, 336 (1985)); see Superior Auto. | 1 | 3 |
Robert Leo Brown and Billie Louise Brown, Bankrupts, Warren L. McConnico Trustee v. First National Bank of Deweygreen1 sentence2012As to the trial court's finding that the settlement proceeds were from the disposition of the collateral: Moser v. Gosnell, 334 S.C. 425, 430 , 513 S.E.2d 123, 125 (Ct. App. 1999) ("In construing the terms of a contract, the foremost rule is that the court must give effect to the intentions of the parties by looking to the language of the contract."); see generally Brown v. First Nat'l Bank of Dewey, 617 F.2d 581, 584 (10th Cir. 1980) (equating voluntary and involuntary dispositions of collateral in regard to insurance proceeds). 4. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.