7 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hibbard v. Hibbardgreen1 sentence2022See Hibbard, 151 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 557 (allowing the court to consider the subsequent conduct of the parties in interpreting ambiguous language in a contract). | 1 | 1 |
Settlemeyer v. McCluneygreen2 sentences2022See Cash v. Maddox, 265 S.C. 480, 484 , 220 S.E.2d 121, 122 (1975) (providing the existence of an oral contract must be proved by "clear, definite, and certain" evidence); Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 12 , 681 S.E.2d 6, 12 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the trier of fact "has the task of assessing the credibility, persuasiveness, and weight of the evidence presented"); Gibson v. Hrysikos, 293 S.C. 8, 13 , 358 S.E.2d 173, 175-76 (Ct. App. 1987) (listing an exception to the writing requirement of the Statute of Frauds allows a court to enforce specific performance of an oral agreement to convey real p 2022See Cash v. Maddox, 265 S.C. 480, 484 , 220 S.E.2d 121, 122 (1975) (providing the existence of an oral contract must be proved by "clear, definite, and certain" evidence); Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 12 , 681 S.E.2d 6, 12 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the trier of fact "has the task of assessing the credibility, persuasiveness, and weight of the evidence presented"); Gibson v. Hrysikos, 293 S.C. 8, 13 , 358 S.E.2d 173, 175-76 (Ct. App. 1987) (listing an exception to the writing requirement of the Statute of Frauds allows a court to enforce specific performance of an oral agreement to convey real p | 1 | 1 |
Gibson v. Hrysikosgreen2 sentences2022See Cash v. Maddox, 265 S.C. 480, 484 , 220 S.E.2d 121, 122 (1975) (providing the existence of an oral contract must be proved by "clear, definite, and certain" evidence); Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 12 , 681 S.E.2d 6, 12 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the trier of fact "has the task of assessing the credibility, persuasiveness, and weight of the evidence presented"); Gibson v. Hrysikos, 293 S.C. 8, 13 , 358 S.E.2d 173, 175-76 (Ct. App. 1987) (listing an exception to the writing requirement of the Statute of Frauds allows a court to enforce specific performance of an oral agreement to convey real p 2022See Cash v. Maddox, 265 S.C. 480, 484 , 220 S.E.2d 121, 122 (1975) (providing the existence of an oral contract must be proved by "clear, definite, and certain" evidence); Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 12 , 681 S.E.2d 6, 12 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the trier of fact "has the task of assessing the credibility, persuasiveness, and weight of the evidence presented"); Gibson v. Hrysikos, 293 S.C. 8, 13 , 358 S.E.2d 173, 175-76 (Ct. App. 1987) (listing an exception to the writing requirement of the Statute of Frauds allows a court to enforce specific performance of an oral agreement to convey real p | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Leagangreen2 sentences2022See Cash v. Maddox, 265 S.C. 480, 484 , 220 S.E.2d 121, 122 (1975) (providing the existence of an oral contract must be proved by "clear, definite, and certain" evidence); Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 12 , 681 S.E.2d 6, 12 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the trier of fact "has the task of assessing the credibility, persuasiveness, and weight of the evidence presented"); Gibson v. Hrysikos, 293 S.C. 8, 13 , 358 S.E.2d 173, 175-76 (Ct. App. 1987) (listing an exception to the writing requirement of the Statute of Frauds allows a court to enforce specific performance of an oral agreement to convey real p 2022See Cash v. Maddox, 265 S.C. 480, 484 , 220 S.E.2d 121, 122 (1975) (providing the existence of an oral contract must be proved by "clear, definite, and certain" evidence); Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 12 , 681 S.E.2d 6, 12 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the trier of fact "has the task of assessing the credibility, persuasiveness, and weight of the evidence presented"); Gibson v. Hrysikos, 293 S.C. 8, 13 , 358 S.E.2d 173, 175-76 (Ct. App. 1987) (listing an exception to the writing requirement of the Statute of Frauds allows a court to enforce specific performance of an oral agreement to convey real p | 1 | 1 |
Cash v. Maddoxgreen2 sentences2022See Cash v. Maddox, 265 S.C. 480, 484 , 220 S.E.2d 121, 122 (1975) (providing the existence of an oral contract must be proved by "clear, definite, and certain" evidence); Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 12 , 681 S.E.2d 6, 12 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the trier of fact "has the task of assessing the credibility, persuasiveness, and weight of the evidence presented"); Gibson v. Hrysikos, 293 S.C. 8, 13 , 358 S.E.2d 173, 175-76 (Ct. App. 1987) (listing an exception to the writing requirement of the Statute of Frauds allows a court to enforce specific performance of an oral agreement to convey real p 2022See Cash v. Maddox, 265 S.C. 480, 484 , 220 S.E.2d 121, 122 (1975) (providing the existence of an oral contract must be proved by "clear, definite, and certain" evidence); Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 12 , 681 S.E.2d 6, 12 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the trier of fact "has the task of assessing the credibility, persuasiveness, and weight of the evidence presented"); Gibson v. Hrysikos, 293 S.C. 8, 13 , 358 S.E.2d 173, 175-76 (Ct. App. 1987) (listing an exception to the writing requirement of the Statute of Frauds allows a court to enforce specific performance of an oral agreement to convey real p | 1 | 1 |
In Re Taylorgreen1 sentence2019See id. ("In interpreting a statute, the court will give words their plain and ordinary meaning[] and will not resort to forced construction that would limit or expand the statute." (emphasis added)); CFRE, 395 S.C. at 74 , 716 S.E.2d at 881 (2011) (holding that a statute "must be read as a whole and sections [that] are part of the same general statutory law must be construed together and each one given effect" (quoting S.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2019See id. ("In interpreting a statute, the court will give words their plain and ordinary meaning[] and will not resort to forced construction that would limit or expand the statute." (emphasis added)); CFRE, 395 S.C. at 74 , 716 S.E.2d at 881 (2011) (holding that a statute "must be read as a whole and sections [that] are part of the same general statutory law must be construed together and each one given effect" (quoting S.C. | 1 | 1 |
Player v. Chandlergreen2 sentences2008While we acknowledge a proper memorandum evidencing an oral grant to Appellants, beyond that which was included in the deed, would be enough to satisfy the writing requirement in section 27-35-20, we find the 1999 affidavit does not meet these requirements. [A] writing must reasonably identify the subject matter of the contract, sufficiently indicate a contract has been made between the parties, and state with reasonable certainty the essential terms of the agreement. Player v. Chandler , 299 S.C. 101, 106 , 382 S.E.2d 891, 895 (1989) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 131 (1981)). 2008While we acknowledge a proper memorandum evidencing an oral grant to Appellants, beyond that which was included in the deed, would be enough to satisfy the writing requirement in section 27-35-20, we find the 1999 affidavit does not meet these requirements. [A] writing must reasonably identify the subject matter of the contract, sufficiently indicate a contract has been made between the parties, and state with reasonable certainty the essential terms of the agreement. Player v. Chandler , 299 S.C. 101, 106 , 382 S.E.2d 891, 895 (1989) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 131 (1981)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bradshaw v. Ewing
green
2 sentences2007However, we do not find any factual dispute which would make this exception applicable. To remove an oral contract to convey real estate from the Statute of Frauds, [the party trying to enforce the contract] must show part performance of the oral contract. Bradshaw , 297 S.C. at 245 , 376 S.E.2d at 266 . 2007However, we do not find any factual dispute which would make this exception applicable. To remove an oral contract to convey real estate from the Statute of Frauds, [the party trying to enforce the contract] must show part performance of the oral contract. Bradshaw , 297 S.C. at 245 , 376 S.E.2d at 266 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Ross v. Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019Cf. Ross, 371 S.C. at 473 n.1, 639 S.E.2d at 465 n.1 (holding that an incentive plan providing for estimated payment dates rather than dates certain "sought to set aside the requirement of the Act that Employers must provide a 'time and place of payment' to employees"). 2019Cf. Ross, 371 S.C. at 473 n.1, 639 S.E.2d at 465 n.1 (holding that an incentive plan providing for estimated payment dates rather than dates certain "sought to set aside the requirement of the Act that Employers must provide a 'time and place of payment' to employees"). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
CFRE, LLC v. Greenville County Assessor
green
1 sentence2019See id. ("In interpreting a statute, the court will give words their plain and ordinary meaning[] and will not resort to forced construction that would limit or expand the statute." (emphasis added)); CFRE, 395 S.C. at 74 , 716 S.E.2d at 881 (2011) (holding that a statute "must be read as a whole and sections [that] are part of the same general statutory law must be construed together and each one given effect" (quoting S.C. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jones v. Wolf
green
2 sentences2017Id. (holding that the Dennis Canon does not create an express trust pursuant to South Carolina property law); cf. Jones, 443 U.S. at 606 , 99 S.Ct. 3020 (stating that civil courts must give effect to deeds and trust documents executed by the general church “provided [the documents are] embodied in some legally cognizable form” (emphasis added)). 64 With respect to the writing requirement, the defendants argue that twenty-eight of the thirty-six plaintiff parishes “made express promises in their governing documents to comply with the [n]ational [cjhurch’s rules after those rules had been amende 2017Id. (holding that the Dennis Canon does not create an express trust pursuant to South Carolina property law); cf. Jones, 443 U.S. at 606 , 99 S.Ct. 3020 (stating that civil courts must give effect to deeds and trust documents executed by the general church “provided [the documents are] embodied in some legally cognizable form” (emphasis added)). 64 With respect to the writing requirement, the defendants argue that twenty-eight of the thirty-six plaintiff parishes “made express promises in their governing documents to comply with the [n]ational [cjhurch’s rules after those rules had been amende | 1 | 2017–2017 |
All Saints Parish Waccamaw v. Protestant Episcopal Church in Diocese
green
1 sentence2017Id. (holding that the Dennis Canon does not create an express trust pursuant to South Carolina property law); cf. Jones, 443 U.S. at 606 , 99 S.Ct. 3020 (stating that civil courts must give effect to deeds and trust documents executed by the general church “provided [the documents are] embodied in some legally cognizable form” (emphasis added)). 64 With respect to the writing requirement, the defendants argue that twenty-eight of the thirty-six plaintiff parishes “made express promises in their governing documents to comply with the [n]ational [cjhurch’s rules after those rules had been amende | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.