6 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Layman v. Stategreen2 sentences2017"An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the [circuit] court are either controlled by an error of law or are based on unsupported factual conclusions." Layman, 376 S.C. at 444 , 658 S.E.2d at 325 . "[C]ourts generally hold that a 'lodestar' approach reflecting the amount of attorney time reasonably expended on the litigation results in a reasonable fee under a fee- shifting statute." Id. at 452 , 658 S.E.2d at 330 ; see also Maybank v. BB&T Corp., 416 S.C. 541, 580-81 , 787 S.E.2d 498, 518-19 (2016) (affirming the circuit court's use of a lodestar analysis to calculate a reasonab 2017"An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the [circuit] court are either controlled by an error of law or are based on unsupported factual conclusions." Layman, 376 S.C. at 444 , 658 S.E.2d at 325 . "[C]ourts generally hold that a 'lodestar' approach reflecting the amount of attorney time reasonably expended on the litigation results in a reasonable fee under a fee- shifting statute." Id. at 452 , 658 S.E.2d at 330 ; see also Maybank v. BB&T Corp., 416 S.C. 541, 580-81 , 787 S.E.2d 498, 518-19 (2016) (affirming the circuit court's use of a lodestar analysis to calculate a reasonab | 1 | 4 |
Maybank v. BB&T Corp.green2 sentences2017"An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the [circuit] court are either controlled by an error of law or are based on unsupported factual conclusions." Layman, 376 S.C. at 444 , 658 S.E.2d at 325 . "[C]ourts generally hold that a 'lodestar' approach reflecting the amount of attorney time reasonably expended on the litigation results in a reasonable fee under a fee- shifting statute." Id. at 452 , 658 S.E.2d at 330 ; see also Maybank v. BB&T Corp., 416 S.C. 541, 580-81 , 787 S.E.2d 498, 518-19 (2016) (affirming the circuit court's use of a lodestar analysis to calculate a reasonab 2017"An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the [circuit] court are either controlled by an error of law or are based on unsupported factual conclusions." Layman, 376 S.C. at 444 , 658 S.E.2d at 325 . "[C]ourts generally hold that a 'lodestar' approach reflecting the amount of attorney time reasonably expended on the litigation results in a reasonable fee under a fee- shifting statute." Id. at 452 , 658 S.E.2d at 330 ; see also Maybank v. BB&T Corp., 416 S.C. 541, 580-81 , 787 S.E.2d 498, 518-19 (2016) (affirming the circuit court's use of a lodestar analysis to calculate a reasonab | 1 | 1 |
South Carolina Department of Transportation v. Revelsgreen2 sentences2016Dep’t of Transp. v. Revels, 411 S.C. 1, 5 , 766 S.E.2d 700, 702 (2014) (quoting Layman v. State, 376 S.C. 434, 457 , 658 S.E.2d 320, 332 (2008)). 10 . 2016Dep’t of Transp. v. Revels, 411 S.C. 1, 5 , 766 S.E.2d 700, 702 (2014) (quoting Layman v. State, 376 S.C. 434, 457 , 658 S.E.2d 320, 332 (2008)). 10 . | 1 | 1 |
Edmonds v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2008See Edmonds, 658 F.Supp. at 1135 n. 18, 1147 n. 44 (performing a lodestar analysis and adjusting the time devoted to litigating the underlying case by two to three percent in order to account for the fact that “some hours may not be properly compensable”). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tucker v. Catoe
green
2 sentences2022While the Tucker factors are the lodestar of our analysis, it is equally true these factors do not represent an exhaustive list; nor could they since "[t]he test for determining whether a given charge is unconstitutionally coercive is very fact intensive." Tucker, 346 S.C. at 491 , 552 S.E.2d at 716 . 2022While the Tucker factors are the lodestar of our analysis, it is equally true these factors do not represent an exhaustive list; nor could they since "[t]he test for determining whether a given charge is unconstitutionally coercive is very fact intensive." Tucker, 346 S.C. at 491 , 552 S.E.2d at 716 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Vick v. South Carolina Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2014The court awarded Petitioners attorneys’ fees in the amount of $16,290, which was based on an hourly rate of $300 per hour for 54.3 hours. 7 In their motion for reconsideration, Petitioners asserted the court failed to: (1) rule on whether the requested attorneys’ fees were reasonable under section 28 — 2—510(B); (2) consider the case of Vick v. South Carolina Department of Transportation, 347 S.C. 470 , 556 S.E.2d 693 (Ct.App.2001), wherein the Court of Appeals approved the use of a contingency fee agreement in a condemnation action; (3) address any of the factors identified in Jackson-, and 2014The court awarded Petitioners attorneys’ fees in the amount of $16,290, which was based on an hourly rate of $300 per hour for 54.3 hours. 7 In their motion for reconsideration, Petitioners asserted the court failed to: (1) rule on whether the requested attorneys’ fees were reasonable under section 28 — 2—510(B); (2) consider the case of Vick v. South Carolina Department of Transportation, 347 S.C. 470 , 556 S.E.2d 693 (Ct.App.2001), wherein the Court of Appeals approved the use of a contingency fee agreement in a condemnation action; (3) address any of the factors identified in Jackson-, and | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.