6 South Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
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 | 2 | 2 |
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 |
Scurry v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2009In Scurry v. Edwards, 232 S.C. 53, 61 , 100 S.E.2d 812, 816-17 (1957), the Court explained the nature of the part performance exception to the Statute of Frauds: [T]he courts [will] require specific performance of an oral contract for the conveyance of land, where the terms of the contract are clear, definite and certain and are established by competent and satisfactory proof, and where the party seeking to rescue it from the statute shows such acts of performance or part performance on his part, clearly and unequivocally referable to such agreement, as would render application of the statute 2009In Scurry v. Edwards, 232 S.C. 53, 61 , 100 S.E.2d 812, 816-17 (1957), the Court explained the nature of the part performance exception to the Statute of Frauds: [T]he courts [will] require specific performance of an oral contract for the conveyance of land, where the terms of the contract are clear, definite and certain and are established by competent and satisfactory proof, and where the party seeking to rescue it from the statute shows such acts of performance or part performance on his part, clearly and unequivocally referable to such agreement, as would render application of the statute | 1 | 1 |
Parr v. Parrgreen2 sentences2005“Sufficient part performance of a parole contract to convey or devise real estate will, in equity, remove agreement from operation of statute of frauds.” Parr v. Parr, 268 S.C. 58, 65 , 231 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1977). 2005“Sufficient part performance of a parole contract to convey or devise real estate will, in equity, remove agreement from operation of statute of frauds.” Parr v. Parr, 268 S.C. 58, 65 , 231 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1977). | 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 |
Leventis v. Acciardo
neutral
1 sentence1984The trial judge ruled on the question of whether the doctrine of part performance can serve to remove an oral agreement from the statute of frauds on the authority of Leventis v. Acciardo, 256 S. C. 437, 182 S. E. (2d) 726 (1971). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
White v. McKnight
neutral
1 sentence1984Citing White v. McKnight, 146 S. C. 59, 143 S. E. 552 (1928), another circuit judge, the Honorable Francis Nicholson, however, ruled earlier in the case upon motion by Jenkins and the Association for summary judgment that the doctrine of part performance would “not permit the recovery of damages in an action at law for the breach of an oral contract obnoxious to the Statute of Frauds.” Harmon does not appeal Judge Nicholson’s ruling. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.