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 1992–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Whitlaw v. the Kroger Co.green2 sentences2005“In a subsequent decision, our Supreme Court further extended the analysis by stating that ‘the plaintiff must prove violation of the statute was causally linked, both in fact and proximately, to the injury.’ ” Hurst v. Sandy, 329 S.C. 471, 478 , 494 S.E.2d 847, 850 (Ct.App.1997) (quoting Whitlaw v. Kroger Co., 306 S.C. 51, 55 , 410 S.E.2d 251, 253 (1991)). 2005“In a subsequent decision, our Supreme Court further extended the analysis by stating that ‘the plaintiff must prove violation of the statute was causally linked, both in fact and proximately, to the injury.’ ” Hurst v. Sandy, 329 S.C. 471, 478 , 494 S.E.2d 847, 850 (Ct.App.1997) (quoting Whitlaw v. Kroger Co., 306 S.C. 51, 55 , 410 S.E.2d 251, 253 (1991)). | 2 | 3 |
Bramlette Ex Rel. Estate of Bramlette v. Charter-Medical-Columbiagreen2 sentences2026The plaintiff must prove the violation proximately caused the injury complained of by the injured party." (citation omitted)); Hughes v. Child.'s Clinic, P.A., 269 S.C. 389, 398 , 237 S.E.2d 753, 757 (1977) ("Negligence is not actionable unless it is a proximate cause of the injuries, and it may be deemed a proximate cause only when without such negligence the injury would not have occurred or could have been avoided."); Bramlette v. Charter-Med.-Columbia, 302 S.C. 68, 72 , 393 S.E.2d 914, 916 (1990) ("Proximate cause requires proof of (1) causation in fact and (2) legal cause."); id. ("Causat 2026The plaintiff must prove the violation proximately caused the injury complained of by the injured party." (citation omitted)); Hughes v. Child.'s Clinic, P.A., 269 S.C. 389, 398 , 237 S.E.2d 753, 757 (1977) ("Negligence is not actionable unless it is a proximate cause of the injuries, and it may be deemed a proximate cause only when without such negligence the injury would not have occurred or could have been avoided."); Bramlette v. Charter-Med.-Columbia, 302 S.C. 68, 72 , 393 S.E.2d 914, 916 (1990) ("Proximate cause requires proof of (1) causation in fact and (2) legal cause."); id. ("Causat | 1 | 1 |
Hughes Ex Rel. Hughes v. Children's Clinic, P. A.green2 sentences2026The plaintiff must prove the violation proximately caused the injury complained of by the injured party." (citation omitted)); Hughes v. Child.'s Clinic, P.A., 269 S.C. 389, 398 , 237 S.E.2d 753, 757 (1977) ("Negligence is not actionable unless it is a proximate cause of the injuries, and it may be deemed a proximate cause only when without such negligence the injury would not have occurred or could have been avoided."); Bramlette v. Charter-Med.-Columbia, 302 S.C. 68, 72 , 393 S.E.2d 914, 916 (1990) ("Proximate cause requires proof of (1) causation in fact and (2) legal cause."); id. ("Causat 2026The plaintiff must prove the violation proximately caused the injury complained of by the injured party." (citation omitted)); Hughes v. Child.'s Clinic, P.A., 269 S.C. 389, 398 , 237 S.E.2d 753, 757 (1977) ("Negligence is not actionable unless it is a proximate cause of the injuries, and it may be deemed a proximate cause only when without such negligence the injury would not have occurred or could have been avoided."); Bramlette v. Charter-Med.-Columbia, 302 S.C. 68, 72 , 393 S.E.2d 914, 916 (1990) ("Proximate cause requires proof of (1) causation in fact and (2) legal cause."); id. ("Causat | 1 | 1 |
Charleston Lumber Co. v. Miller Housing Corp.green2 sentences2008Charleston Lumber Co. v. Miller Housing Corp., 318 S.C. 471, 482 , 458 S.E.2d 431, 438 (Ct.App.1995). 2008Charleston Lumber Co. v. Miller Housing Corp., 318 S.C. 471, 482 , 458 S.E.2d 431, 438 (Ct.App.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Hurst v. Sandygreen2 sentences2005“In a subsequent decision, our Supreme Court further extended the analysis by stating that ‘the plaintiff must prove violation of the statute was causally linked, both in fact and proximately, to the injury.’ ” Hurst v. Sandy, 329 S.C. 471, 478 , 494 S.E.2d 847, 850 (Ct.App.1997) (quoting Whitlaw v. Kroger Co., 306 S.C. 51, 55 , 410 S.E.2d 251, 253 (1991)). 2005“In a subsequent decision, our Supreme Court further extended the analysis by stating that ‘the plaintiff must prove violation of the statute was causally linked, both in fact and proximately, to the injury.’ ” Hurst v. Sandy, 329 S.C. 471, 478 , 494 S.E.2d 847, 850 (Ct.App.1997) (quoting Whitlaw v. Kroger Co., 306 S.C. 51, 55 , 410 S.E.2d 251, 253 (1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Rayfield Ex Rel. Estate of Rayfield v. South Carolina Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2001Id.; see also Rayfield, 297 S.C. at 104 , 374 S.E.2d at 915 ("Negligence per se simply means the jury need not decide if the defendant acted as would a reasonable man in the circumstances. 2001Id.; see also Rayfield, 297 S.C. at 104 , 374 S.E.2d at 915 ("Negligence per se simply means the jury need not decide if the defendant acted as would a reasonable man in the circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.