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.
6 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1927–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Spreeuw v. Barkergreen2 sentences2024See Spreeuw, 385 S.C. at 68-69 , 682 S.E.2d at 855 (finding this court could not consider a document that was submitted to the family court "only as an attachment to [the father's] Rule 59(e) motion"). 2024See Spreeuw, 385 S.C. at 68-69 , 682 S.E.2d at 855 (finding this court could not consider a document that was submitted to the family court "only as an attachment to [the father's] Rule 59(e) motion"). | 1 | 1 |
Bank of New York v. Sumter Countygreen2 sentences2018See e.g. , Bank of New York v. Sumter County , 387 S.C. 147 , 159, 691 S.E.2d 473 , 479 (2010) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time in a post-trial motion."). 2018See e.g. , Bank of New York v. Sumter County , 387 S.C. 147 , 159, 691 S.E.2d 473 , 479 (2010) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time in a post-trial motion."). | 1 | 1 |
Wolf v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurancegreen2 sentences2014Co., 309 S.C. 100, 106 , 420 S.E.2d 217, 220 (Ct. App. 1992) (stating an issue is unpreserved if the appellant raises it for the first time at the hearing on her motion for reconsideration); Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 456 , 392 S.E.2d 481, 482 (Ct. App. 1990) ("A party cannot use Rule 59(e) to present to the [family] court an issue the party could have raised prior to judgment but did not."). 2. 2014Co., 309 S.C. 100, 106 , 420 S.E.2d 217, 220 (Ct. App. 1992) (stating an issue is unpreserved if the appellant raises it for the first time at the hearing on her motion for reconsideration); Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 456 , 392 S.E.2d 481, 482 (Ct. App. 1990) ("A party cannot use Rule 59(e) to present to the [family] court an issue the party could have raised prior to judgment but did not."). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Hickman v. Hickmangreen2 sentences2014Co., 309 S.C. 100, 106 , 420 S.E.2d 217, 220 (Ct. App. 1992) (stating an issue is unpreserved if the appellant raises it for the first time at the hearing on her motion for reconsideration); Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 456 , 392 S.E.2d 481, 482 (Ct. App. 1990) ("A party cannot use Rule 59(e) to present to the [family] court an issue the party could have raised prior to judgment but did not."). 2. 2014Co., 309 S.C. 100, 106 , 420 S.E.2d 217, 220 (Ct. App. 1992) (stating an issue is unpreserved if the appellant raises it for the first time at the hearing on her motion for reconsideration); Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 456 , 392 S.E.2d 481, 482 (Ct. App. 1990) ("A party cannot use Rule 59(e) to present to the [family] court an issue the party could have raised prior to judgment but did not."). 2. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Richardson v. Register
green
1 sentence1966Richardson v. Register, 227 S. C. 81, 87 S. E. (2d) 40 ; Bagwell v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 246 S. C. 569, 145 S. E. (2d) 17 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Bagwell v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1966Richardson v. Register, 227 S. C. 81, 87 S. E. (2d) 40 ; Bagwell v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 246 S. C. 569, 145 S. E. (2d) 17 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
White v. Southern Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1929White v. Railway Co., 142 S. C., 284, 140 S. E., 560 , 57 A. L. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Piero v. Southern Express Co.
green
1 sentence1927In the case of Piero v. Southern Express Co., 103 S. C., 467; 88 S. E., 269 , testimony was objected to, but no ground for the objection was stated. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
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.