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.
11 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1914–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry Cnty.green2 sentences2025See Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County, 426 S.C. 175, 180 , 826 S.E.2d 585, 587 (2019) ("Rule 12(b)(6) permits the trial court to address the sufficiency of a pleading stating a claim; it is not a vehicle for addressing the underlying merits of the claim."); id. ("At the Rule 12 stage, therefore, the first decision for the trial court is to decide only whether the pleading states a claim."). 2 2 Because our prior findings are dispositive, we need not further consider Wallis's argument that he properly pled the elements of his wrongful termination claim. 2025See Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County, 426 S.C. 175, 180 , 826 S.E.2d 585, 587 (2019) ("Rule 12(b)(6) permits the trial court to address the sufficiency of a pleading stating a claim; it is not a vehicle for addressing the underlying merits of the claim."); id. ("At the Rule 12 stage, therefore, the first decision for the trial court is to decide only whether the pleading states a claim."). 2 2 Because our prior findings are dispositive, we need not further consider Wallis's argument that he properly pled the elements of his wrongful termination claim. | 3 | 3 |
Island Car Wash, Inc. v. Norrisgreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Island Car Wash, 292 S.C. at 600 , 358 S.E.2d at 152 ; Yaeger, 291 S.C. at 487 , 354 S.E.2d at 394 . 2021See, e.g., Island Car Wash, 292 S.C. at 600 , 358 S.E.2d at 152 ; Yaeger, 291 S.C. at 487 , 354 S.E.2d at 394 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2021State v. Davis, 88 S.C. 229, 233 , 70 S.E. 811, 813 (1911) ("It is enough if the acts agreed to be done, although not criminal, are wrongful; that is amount to a civil wrong." (citations omitted)). 2021State v. Davis, 88 S.C. 229, 233 , 70 S.E. 811, 813 (1911) ("It is enough if the acts agreed to be done, although not criminal, are wrongful; that is amount to a civil wrong." (citations omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.green1 sentence2025See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burtongreen2 sentences2021See State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259 , 265 n.5, 589 S.E.2d 6 , 9 n.5 (2003) ("A pro se litigant who knowingly elects to represent himself assumes full responsibility for complying with substantive and procedural requirements of the law."). 2. 2021See State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259 , 265 n.5, 589 S.E.2d 6 , 9 n.5 (2003) ("A pro se litigant who knowingly elects to represent himself assumes full responsibility for complying with substantive and procedural requirements of the law."). 2. | 1 | 1 |
James v. Listergreen2 sentences2020See infra. The Garrisons cite James v. Lister, 331 S.C. 277, 284 , 500 S.E.2d 198, 202 (Ct. App. 1998), cert. denied (Mar. 5, 1999), for the proposition that South Carolina law requires any liability limits affecting the proof at trial to be pled as an affirmative defense. 2020See infra. The Garrisons cite James v. Lister, 331 S.C. 277, 284 , 500 S.E.2d 198, 202 (Ct. App. 1998), cert. denied (Mar. 5, 1999), for the proposition that South Carolina law requires any liability limits affecting the proof at trial to be pled as an affirmative defense. | 1 | 1 |
McCall v. A-T-O, Inc.green2 sentences2009To hold otherwise would render the requirements in Rule 12(a), SCRCP, meaningless.”); Id. (holding although the appellants’ late answer amounted to a pleading filed prior to entry of default, it did not comply with the time requirements of Rule 12(a), SCRCP, and thus, the court’s entry of default was proper because it was not a valid pleading or defense as provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure); Roberson , 365 S.C. at 9-10 , 615 S.E.2d at 114 (finding the standard for granting relief from an entry of default is good cause under rule governing default judgments, while the standard is more ri 2009To hold otherwise would render the requirements in Rule 12(a), SCRCP, meaningless.”); Id. (holding although the appellants’ late answer amounted to a pleading filed prior to entry of default, it did not comply with the time requirements of Rule 12(a), SCRCP, and thus, the court’s entry of default was proper because it was not a valid pleading or defense as provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure); Roberson , 365 S.C. at 9-10 , 615 S.E.2d at 114 (finding the standard for granting relief from an entry of default is good cause under rule governing default judgments, while the standard is more ri | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Dottsgreen2 sentences2009To hold otherwise would render the requirements in Rule 12(a), SCRCP, meaningless.”); Id. (holding although the appellants’ late answer amounted to a pleading filed prior to entry of default, it did not comply with the time requirements of Rule 12(a), SCRCP, and thus, the court’s entry of default was proper because it was not a valid pleading or defense as provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure); Roberson , 365 S.C. at 9-10 , 615 S.E.2d at 114 (finding the standard for granting relief from an entry of default is good cause under rule governing default judgments, while the standard is more ri 2009To hold otherwise would render the requirements in Rule 12(a), SCRCP, meaningless.”); Id. (holding although the appellants’ late answer amounted to a pleading filed prior to entry of default, it did not comply with the time requirements of Rule 12(a), SCRCP, and thus, the court’s entry of default was proper because it was not a valid pleading or defense as provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure); Roberson , 365 S.C. at 9-10 , 615 S.E.2d at 114 (finding the standard for granting relief from an entry of default is good cause under rule governing default judgments, while the standard is more ri | 1 | 1 |
Roberson v. Southern Finance of South Carolina, Inc.green2 sentences2009To hold otherwise would render the requirements in Rule 12(a), SCRCP, meaningless.”); Id. (holding although the appellants’ late answer amounted to a pleading filed prior to entry of default, it did not comply with the time requirements of Rule 12(a), SCRCP, and thus, the court’s entry of default was proper because it was not a valid pleading or defense as provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure); Roberson , 365 S.C. at 9-10 , 615 S.E.2d at 114 (finding the standard for granting relief from an entry of default is good cause under rule governing default judgments, while the standard is more ri 2009To hold otherwise would render the requirements in Rule 12(a), SCRCP, meaningless.”); Id. (holding although the appellants’ late answer amounted to a pleading filed prior to entry of default, it did not comply with the time requirements of Rule 12(a), SCRCP, and thus, the court’s entry of default was proper because it was not a valid pleading or defense as provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure); Roberson , 365 S.C. at 9-10 , 615 S.E.2d at 114 (finding the standard for granting relief from an entry of default is good cause under rule governing default judgments, while the standard is more ri | 1 | 1 |
Stark Truss Co. v. Superior Construction Corp.green2 sentences2009Corp. , 360 S.C. 503, 509 , 602 S.E.2d 99, 102 (Ct. App. 2004) (“A plain reading of Rule 55(a) allows entry of default when a pleading or defense is asserted in a manner noncompliant with the Rules of Civil Procedure. 2009Corp. , 360 S.C. 503, 509 , 602 S.E.2d 99, 102 (Ct. App. 2004) (“A plain reading of Rule 55(a) allows entry of default when a pleading or defense is asserted in a manner noncompliant with the Rules of Civil Procedure. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. Chesterfield General Hospital, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Although the Court did not mention "special damages" in Todd, several years after Todd a few cases, such as Lee, 289 S.C. at 10 , 344 S.E.2d at 382 , recited the three-part test for civil conspiracy that appeared to contain the pleading requirement as an element of the claim. 2021Although the Court did not mention "special damages" in Todd, several years after Todd a few cases, such as Lee, 289 S.C. at 10 , 344 S.E.2d at 382 , recited the three-part test for civil conspiracy that appeared to contain the pleading requirement as an element of the claim. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Yaeger v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2021See, e.g., Island Car Wash, 292 S.C. at 600 , 358 S.E.2d at 152 ; Yaeger, 291 S.C. at 487 , 354 S.E.2d at 394 . 2021See, e.g., Island Car Wash, 292 S.C. at 600 , 358 S.E.2d at 152 ; Yaeger, 291 S.C. at 487 , 354 S.E.2d at 394 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Etiwan Fertilizer Co. v. Jones
neutral
2 sentences1943“A sham answer is one good in form, but false in fact, and not pleaded in good faith; being a mere pretense, set up in bad faith and without color of fact.” Id. 1943“The motion to strike out a pleading or defense as sham is not looked upon with favor, and will be granted only, where the falsity clearly appears, since the truth or falsity of a pleading is ordinarily to be tried by a jury, with full opportunity for producing, examining, and cross-examining, witnesses.” Etiwan Fertilizer Co. v. Johns et al., 202 S. C., 29, 24 S. E. (2d), 74, 76 . | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Burkhalter v. Townsend
green
1 sentence1943The motion to strike out a pleading or defense as sham is not looked upon with favor, and will be granted only where the falsity clearly appears, since the truth or falsity of a pleading is ordinarily to be tried by a jury, with full opportunity for producing, examining, and cross examining, witnesses. 31 Cyc., 628; Burkhalter v. Townsend, supra. It does not appear, in view of the conflicting affldavits, that the counterclaim has not been pleaded in good faith, or that it has been set up as a mere pretense. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Kirven
green
1 sentence1914“A sham pleading is one good in form but false in fact. * * * A pleading is not a sham, merely because legally insufficient, or demurrable for insufficiency, nor because insufficiently setting forth a valid claim or defense, nor because of the omission of material facts, nor because it contains inconsistent averments.” 31 Cyc. 623, 624. 2, 3 “The motion to- strike out a pleading as sham can be directed only against an entire answer, or an entire defense, and an entire answer will not be stricken out, upon a showing that a separable part of it is sham. * * * The motion to strike out a pleading | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Pierson v. Green
neutral
1 sentence1914“A sham pleading is one good in form but false in fact. * * * A pleading is not a sham, merely because legally insufficient, or demurrable for insufficiency, nor because insufficiently setting forth a valid claim or defense, nor because of the omission of material facts, nor because it contains inconsistent averments.” 31 Cyc. 623, 624. 2, 3 “The motion to- strike out a pleading as sham can be directed only against an entire answer, or an entire defense, and an entire answer will not be stricken out, upon a showing that a separable part of it is sham. * * * The motion to strike out a pleading | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Kirven v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.
green
1 sentence1914“A sham pleading is one good in form but false in fact. * * * A pleading is not a sham, merely because legally insufficient, or demurrable for insufficiency, nor because insufficiently setting forth a valid claim or defense, nor because of the omission of material facts, nor because it contains inconsistent averments.” 31 Cyc. 623, 624. 2, 3 “The motion to- strike out a pleading as sham can be directed only against an entire answer, or an entire defense, and an entire answer will not be stricken out, upon a showing that a separable part of it is sham. * * * The motion to strike out a pleading | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Buist v. Salvo
neutral
1 sentence1914“A sham pleading is one good in form but false in fact. * * * A pleading is not a sham, merely because legally insufficient, or demurrable for insufficiency, nor because insufficiently setting forth a valid claim or defense, nor because of the omission of material facts, nor because it contains inconsistent averments.” 31 Cyc. 623, 624. 2, 3 “The motion to- strike out a pleading as sham can be directed only against an entire answer, or an entire defense, and an entire answer will not be stricken out, upon a showing that a separable part of it is sham. * * * The motion to strike out a pleading | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.