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 1992–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Calderon v. Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation Servicesgreen2 sentences2023Servs., 181 F.3d 1180, 1186 (10th Cir. 1999))); id. ("The particularity requirement should not be applied in an overly technical fashion when the purpose behind the rule is not jeopardized." (quoting Andreas v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 336 F.3d 789 , 793 (8th Cir. 2003))). 2023Servs., 181 F.3d 1180, 1186 (10th Cir. 1999))); id. ("The particularity requirement should not be applied in an overly technical fashion when the purpose behind the rule is not jeopardized." (quoting Andreas v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 336 F.3d 789 , 793 (8th Cir. 2003))). | 1 | 1 |
Doe Law Firm v. Richardsongreen2 sentences2016See Richardson, 371 S.C. at 18 , 636 S.E.2d at 868 . 2016See Richardson, 371 S.C. at 18 , 636 S.E.2d at 868 . | 1 | 1 |
Camp v. Campgreen2 sentences2011See Camp v. Camp , 386 S.C. 571, 575-76 , 689 S.E.2d 634, 636 (2010) (holding that the particularity requirement of Rule 7(b)(1), SCRCP is to be read flexibly in light of the circumstances of each case and should not be applied in an overly technical fashion when doing so would not serve the purpose behind the rule). 2. 2011See Camp v. Camp , 386 S.C. 571, 575-76 , 689 S.E.2d 634, 636 (2010) (holding that the particularity requirement of Rule 7(b)(1), SCRCP is to be read flexibly in light of the circumstances of each case and should not be applied in an overly technical fashion when doing so would not serve the purpose behind the rule). 2. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McGuiregreen2 sentences1992The purpose behind the requirement for juror silence on the case prior to submission to the jury was stated succinctly in State v. McGuire, 272 S.C. 547, 552 , 253 S.E. (2d) 103, 105 (1979). 1992The purpose behind the requirement for juror silence on the case prior to submission to the jury was stated succinctly in State v. McGuire, 272 S.C. 547, 552 , 253 S.E. (2d) 103, 105 (1979). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brian Andreas v. Volkswagen Of America, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023Servs., 181 F.3d 1180, 1186 (10th Cir. 1999))); id. ("The particularity requirement should not be applied in an overly technical fashion when the purpose behind the rule is not jeopardized." (quoting Andreas v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 336 F.3d 789 , 793 (8th Cir. 2003))). 2010"The particularity requirement should not be applied in an overly technical fashion when the purpose behind the rule is not jeopardized." Andreas v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 336 F.3d 789 , 793 (8th Cir.2003) (citations omitted). *576 Because the particularity requirement is to be read flexibly in light of the peculiar circumstances of each case, we do not believe applying the particularity requirement in an overly technical fashion in this case would serve the purpose behind the rule. | 2 | 2010–2023 |
Dennis v. First State Bank of Texas
green
1 sentence2003In Dennis v. First State Bank of Texas, 989 S.W.2d 22 (Tex.App.1998), the Texas Court of Appeals stated: To allow appellants another chance to relitigate the issues that should have been brought in the [first suit] would circumvent the purpose behind the doctrine of res judicata and would allow a losing party to relitigate a cause of action based solely on an assertion of inadequate representation. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.