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 1 courts 2009–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sloan v. Greenville Countygreen2 sentences2021See Sloan v. Greenville Cty., 380 S.C. 528, 535 , 670 S.E.2d 663, 667 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprudence, not a mechanical rule that is automatically invoked."). 2021See Sloan v. Greenville Cty., 380 S.C. 528, 535 , 670 S.E.2d 663, 667 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprudence, not a mechanical rule that is automatically invoked."). | 4 | 5 |
Kurschner v. City of Camden Planning Commissiongreen2 sentences2021Camden Planning Comm'n, 376 S.C. 165, 175 , 656 S.E.2d 346, 352 (2008) (declining to consider whether a planning commission's denial of an application to subdivide property "constituted a taking without just compensation" because such issues "would not be ripe for judicial review at this stage, and those issues should be litigated in a separate action"). 2021Camden Planning Comm'n, 376 S.C. 165, 175 , 656 S.E.2d 346, 352 (2008) (declining to consider whether a planning commission's denial of an application to subdivide property "constituted a taking without just compensation" because such issues "would not be ripe for judicial review at this stage, and those issues should be litigated in a separate action"). | 1 | 1 |
Sloan v. Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2018See Sloan v. Dep't of Transp., 379 S.C. 160, 167 , 666 S.E.2d 236, 240 (2008) (noting our courts generally do not review "moot and academic questions or make an adjudication where there remains no actual controversy"); id. at 168 , 666 S.E.2d at 240 (explaining an exception to the mootness doctrine exists when "the issue raised is capable of repetition but generally will evade review"); Sloan v. Greenville Cty., 380 S.C. 528, 535 , 670 S.E.2d 663, 667 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprud 2018See Sloan v. Dep't of Transp., 379 S.C. 160, 167 , 666 S.E.2d 236, 240 (2008) (noting our courts generally do not review "moot and academic questions or make an adjudication where there remains no actual controversy"); id. at 168 , 666 S.E.2d at 240 (explaining an exception to the mootness doctrine exists when "the issue raised is capable of repetition but generally will evade review"); Sloan v. Greenville Cty., 380 S.C. 528, 535 , 670 S.E.2d 663, 667 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprud | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Curtis v. State
green
1 sentence2011"The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary . . . , not a mechanical rule that is automatically invoked." Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Sloan v. Greenville County
green
2 sentences2009The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprudence, not a mechanical rule that is automatically invoked. 1 Compare, e.g., Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531, 553-55 , 590 S.E.2d 338, 350-51 , with Sloan, 361 S.C. at 571-72 , 606 S.E.2d at 468 ; cf. 1A C.J.S. 2009The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprudence, not a mechanical rule that is automatically invoked. 1 Compare, e.g., Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531, 553-55 , 590 S.E.2d 338, 350-51 , with Sloan, 361 S.C. at 571-72 , 606 S.E.2d at 468 ; cf. 1A C.J.S. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Sloan v. Greenville County
green
2 sentences2009The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprudence, not a mechanical rule that is automatically invoked. 1 Compare, e.g., Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531, 553-55 , 590 S.E.2d 338, 350-51 , with Sloan, 361 S.C. at 571-72 , 606 S.E.2d at 468 ; cf. 1A C.J.S. 2009The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprudence, not a mechanical rule that is automatically invoked. 1 Compare, e.g., Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531, 553-55 , 590 S.E.2d 338, 350-51 , with Sloan, 361 S.C. at 571-72 , 606 S.E.2d at 468 ; cf. 1A C.J.S. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.