res adjudicata doctrine (South Carolina) · Go Syfert
← South Carolina issues

res adjudicata doctrine in South Carolina

6 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1931–2012 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
First National Bank v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.green
sc · 1945 · cited in 3 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2003–2012
2 sentences

2012Co., 207 S.C. 15, 24 , 35 S.E.2d 47, 56 (1945))).

2012Co., 207 S.C. 15, 24 , 35 S.E.2d 47, 56 (1945))).

33
South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Basnightgreen
scctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012Servs. v. Basnight, 346 S.C. 241, 248 , 551 S.E.2d 274, 278 (Ct.App.2001) (“ ‘The doctrine of res adjudicata (or res judicata) in the strict sense of that time-honored Latin phrase had its origin in the principle that it is in the public interest that there should be an end of litigation and that no one should be twice sued for the same cause of action.’” (quoting First Nat’l Bank of Greenville v. U.S. Fid. & Guar.

2012Servs. v. Basnight, 346 S.C. 241, 248 , 551 S.E.2d 274, 278 (Ct.App.2001) (“ ‘The doctrine of res adjudicata (or res judicata) in the strict sense of that time-honored Latin phrase had its origin in the principle that it is in the public interest that there should be an end of litigation and that no one should be twice sued for the same cause of action.’” (quoting First Nat’l Bank of Greenville v. U.S. Fid. & Guar.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Johnston-Crews Co. v. Folk green
· 1922
2 sentences

1933Johnston-Crews Co. v. Folk et al., 118 S. C., 470, 111 S. E., 15, 18 ; McConnell v. Davis, Director General, 128 S. C., 111, 122 S. E., 399 ; Brown v. Huskamp, 141 S. C., 121, 139 S. E., 181 ; Baltimore S. S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U. S., 316 , 47 S. Ct., 600, 602 , 71 L.

1932Nowhere are they more clearly and succinctly stated than by Mr. Justice Cothran in the case of Johnston-Crews v. Polk et al., 118 S. C., 478, 111 S. E., 15 , 17: “The following have been declared to be the essential elements of res adjudicata: (1) Identity of the parties; (2) identity of the subject-matter; (3). and adjudication in the-former suit of the precise question sought to be raised in the second suit.” The parties to the first suit were W.

21932–1933
Baltimore Steamship Co. v. Phillips green
scotus · 1927
2 sentences

1933Johnston-Crews Co. v. Folk et al., 118 S. C., 470, 111 S. E., 15, 18 ; McConnell v. Davis, Director General, 128 S. C., 111, 122 S. E., 399 ; Brown v. Huskamp, 141 S. C., 121, 139 S. E., 181 ; Baltimore S. S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U. S., 316 , 47 S. Ct., 600, 602 , 71 L.

1933Johnston-Crews Co. v. Folk et al., 118 S. C., 470, 111 S. E., 15, 18 ; McConnell v. Davis, Director General, 128 S. C., 111, 122 S. E., 399 ; Brown v. Huskamp, 141 S. C., 121, 139 S. E., 181 ; Baltimore S. S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U. S., 316 , 47 S. Ct., 600, 602 , 71 L.

11933–1933
McConnell v. Davis, Director General neutral
· 1924
1 sentence

1933Johnston-Crews Co. v. Folk et al., 118 S. C., 470, 111 S. E., 15, 18 ; McConnell v. Davis, Director General, 128 S. C., 111, 122 S. E., 399 ; Brown v. Huskamp, 141 S. C., 121, 139 S. E., 181 ; Baltimore S. S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U. S., 316 , 47 S. Ct., 600, 602 , 71 L.

11933–1933
Brown v. Huskamp green
sc · 1927
1 sentence

1933Johnston-Crews Co. v. Folk et al., 118 S. C., 470, 111 S. E., 15, 18 ; McConnell v. Davis, Director General, 128 S. C., 111, 122 S. E., 399 ; Brown v. Huskamp, 141 S. C., 121, 139 S. E., 181 ; Baltimore S. S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U. S., 316 , 47 S. Ct., 600, 602 , 71 L.

11933–1933
Warren v. Raymond neutral
· 1882
1 sentence

1931In discussing the much more rigid doctrine of res adjudicata , the Court, in Warren v. Raymond , 17 S.C. 163 , said: "The principle of res adjudicata is one of the most important in the administration of justice; for the peace and order of society require that there should be an end of litigation.

11931–1931

Where else courts name it

TX 15 (1896–2025) NY 12 (1899–1938) FL 12 (1936–2001) CA 12 (1873–1949) PA 12 (1913–1963) GA 11 (1931–1972) MS 8 (1965–2003) KY 8 (1917–1984) RI 7 (1943–2007) SC 6 (1931–2012) ME 6 (1951–1973) NJ 6 (1926–1981) MO 5 (1889–1972) IN 5 (1919–1940) AL 5 (1943–1990) IL 4 (1911–1944) NE 3 (1895–1952) CT 3 (1991–2002) MN 3 (1912–1925) VA 3 (1851–2019) SD 3 (1890–1934) IA 3 (1927–1940) OK 3 (1928–1958) VT 2 (1945–1976) KS 2 (1928–1999) DE 2 (1923–1971) UT 2 (1917–1926) TN 2 (1931–1955) WA 2 (1927–1958) MT 2 (1927–1930) AR 2 (1939–1957)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check