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 1998–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barnes v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., A&P Enters., LLC v. SP Grocery of Lynchburg, LLC, 422 S.C. 579, 587 , 812 S.E.2d 759, 763 (Ct. App. 2018) (stating, in an appeal from a special referee, that South Carolina courts recognize a remedy in equity for promissory estoppel); Barnes v. Johnson, 402 S.C. 458, 469 , 742 S.E.2d 6, 11 (Ct. App. 2013) (observing promissory estoppel "is a flexible doctrine that aims to achieve equitable results" and to provide "a remedy where contract law cannot"); Craft v. S.C. 2020See, e.g., A&P Enters., LLC v. SP Grocery of Lynchburg, LLC, 422 S.C. 579, 587 , 812 S.E.2d 759, 763 (Ct. App. 2018) (stating, in an appeal from a special referee, that South Carolina courts recognize a remedy in equity for promissory estoppel); Barnes v. Johnson, 402 S.C. 458, 469 , 742 S.E.2d 6, 11 (Ct. App. 2013) (observing promissory estoppel "is a flexible doctrine that aims to achieve equitable results" and to provide "a remedy where contract law cannot"); Craft v. S.C. | 1 | 2 |
A&P Enters., LLC v. SP Grocery of Lynchburg, LLCgreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., A&P Enters., LLC v. SP Grocery of Lynchburg, LLC, 422 S.C. 579, 587 , 812 S.E.2d 759, 763 (Ct. App. 2018) (stating, in an appeal from a special referee, that South Carolina courts recognize a remedy in equity for promissory estoppel); Barnes v. Johnson, 402 S.C. 458, 469 , 742 S.E.2d 6, 11 (Ct. App. 2013) (observing promissory estoppel "is a flexible doctrine that aims to achieve equitable results" and to provide "a remedy where contract law cannot"); Craft v. S.C. 2020See, e.g., A&P Enters., LLC v. SP Grocery of Lynchburg, LLC, 422 S.C. 579, 587 , 812 S.E.2d 759, 763 (Ct. App. 2018) (stating, in an appeal from a special referee, that South Carolina courts recognize a remedy in equity for promissory estoppel); Barnes v. Johnson, 402 S.C. 458, 469 , 742 S.E.2d 6, 11 (Ct. App. 2013) (observing promissory estoppel "is a flexible doctrine that aims to achieve equitable results" and to provide "a remedy where contract law cannot"); Craft v. S.C. | 1 | 1 |
Craft v. South Carolina Commission for Blindgreen2 sentences2020Comm'n for the Blind, 385 S.C. 560, 564 , 685 S.E.2d 625, 627 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Promissory estoppel is equitable in nature. 2020Comm'n for the Blind, 385 S.C. 560, 564 , 685 S.E.2d 625, 627 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Promissory estoppel is equitable in nature. | 1 | 1 |
Rushing v. McKinneygreen2 sentences2018In Barnes v. Johnson , this court explained that "[a]lthough promissory estoppel is a flexible doctrine that aims to achieve equitable results, it, like all creatures of equity, has limitations." 402 S.C. 458 , 469, 742 S.E.2d 6 , 11 (Ct. App. 2013) ; see Rushing v. McKinney , 370 S.C. 280 , 295, 633 S.E.2d 917 , 925 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding absence of clearly articulated terms between the parties precludes recovery in promissory estoppel). 2018In Barnes v. Johnson , this court explained that "[a]lthough promissory estoppel is a flexible doctrine that aims to achieve equitable results, it, like all creatures of equity, has limitations." 402 S.C. 458 , 469, 742 S.E.2d 6 , 11 (Ct. App. 2013) ; see Rushing v. McKinney , 370 S.C. 280 , 295, 633 S.E.2d 917 , 925 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding absence of clearly articulated terms between the parties precludes recovery in promissory estoppel). | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. 2TheMart. Com Inc.green1 sentence2013See, e.g., 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d at 1095 (noting the adopted test "provides a flexible framework for balancing the First Amendment rights of anonymous speakers with the right of civil litigants to protect their interests through the litigation discovery process”); Cahill, 884 A.2d at 460 (setting forth "the appropriate test by which to strike the balance” between the right to exercise free speech anonymously and the right to obtain the identity of the anonymous speaker). . | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Cahillgreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d at 1095 (noting the adopted test "provides a flexible framework for balancing the First Amendment rights of anonymous speakers with the right of civil litigants to protect their interests through the litigation discovery process”); Cahill, 884 A.2d at 460 (setting forth "the appropriate test by which to strike the balance” between the right to exercise free speech anonymously and the right to obtain the identity of the anonymous speaker). . | 1 | 1 |
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Heitkampred2 sentences2004Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Aviation Assocs. & Consultants, Inc. v. Jet Time, Inc., 303 S.C. 502 , 402 S.E.2d 177 (1991); see also Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 307 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992) (“[W]e have abandoned more formalistic tests that focused on a defendant’s ‘presence’ within a State in favor of a more flexible inquiry into whether a defendant’s contacts with the forum made it reasonable, in the context of our federal system of Government, to require it to defend the suit in that State.”); Internation 2004Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Aviation Assocs. & Consultants, Inc. v. Jet Time, Inc., 303 S.C. 502 , 402 S.E.2d 177 (1991); see also Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 307 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992) (“[W]e have abandoned more formalistic tests that focused on a defendant’s ‘presence’ within a State in favor of a more flexible inquiry into whether a defendant’s contacts with the forum made it reasonable, in the context of our federal system of Government, to require it to defend the suit in that State.”); Internation | 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 |
|---|---|---|
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
green
2 sentences2004Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Aviation Assocs. & Consultants, Inc. v. Jet Time, Inc., 303 S.C. 502 , 402 S.E.2d 177 (1991); see also Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 307 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992) (“[W]e have abandoned more formalistic tests that focused on a defendant’s ‘presence’ within a State in favor of a more flexible inquiry into whether a defendant’s contacts with the forum made it reasonable, in the context of our federal system of Government, to require it to defend the suit in that State.”); Internation 2004Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Aviation Assocs. & Consultants, Inc. v. Jet Time, Inc., 303 S.C. 502 , 402 S.E.2d 177 (1991); see also Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 307 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992) (“[W]e have abandoned more formalistic tests that focused on a defendant’s ‘presence’ within a State in favor of a more flexible inquiry into whether a defendant’s contacts with the forum made it reasonable, in the context of our federal system of Government, to require it to defend the suit in that State.”); Internation | 2 | 1998–2004 |
Murdock v. Murdock
green
2 sentences2004Murdock , 338 S.C. at 333 , 526 S.E.2d at 248 . 2004Murdock , 338 S.C. at 333 , 526 S.E.2d at 248 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Aviation Associates and Consultants, Inc. v. Jet Time, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Aviation Assocs. & Consultants, Inc. v. Jet Time, Inc., 303 S.C. 502 , 402 S.E.2d 177 (1991); see also Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 307 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992) (“[W]e have abandoned more formalistic tests that focused on a defendant’s ‘presence’ within a State in favor of a more flexible inquiry into whether a defendant’s contacts with the forum made it reasonable, in the context of our federal system of Government, to require it to defend the suit in that State.”); Internation 2004Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Aviation Assocs. & Consultants, Inc. v. Jet Time, Inc., 303 S.C. 502 , 402 S.E.2d 177 (1991); see also Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 307 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992) (“[W]e have abandoned more formalistic tests that focused on a defendant’s ‘presence’ within a State in favor of a more flexible inquiry into whether a defendant’s contacts with the forum made it reasonable, in the context of our federal system of Government, to require it to defend the suit in that State.”); Internation | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
green
2 sentences2004Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Aviation Assocs. & Consultants, Inc. v. Jet Time, Inc., 303 S.C. 502 , 402 S.E.2d 177 (1991); see also Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 307 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992) (“[W]e have abandoned more formalistic tests that focused on a defendant’s ‘presence’ within a State in favor of a more flexible inquiry into whether a defendant’s contacts with the forum made it reasonable, in the context of our federal system of Government, to require it to defend the suit in that State.”); Internation 2004Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Aviation Assocs. & Consultants, Inc. v. Jet Time, Inc., 303 S.C. 502 , 402 S.E.2d 177 (1991); see also Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 307 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992) (“[W]e have abandoned more formalistic tests that focused on a defendant’s ‘presence’ within a State in favor of a more flexible inquiry into whether a defendant’s contacts with the forum made it reasonable, in the context of our federal system of Government, to require it to defend the suit in that State.”); Internation | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.