Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Eagle Container v. County of Newberry

366 S.C. 611 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Eagle Container v. County of Newberry

1 Citing case

  1. Peake v. Dept. of Motor

    375 S.C. 589 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that a court should not consider a particular clause in a statute in isolation, but should read it in conjunction with the purpose of the entire statute

    Joiner v.Rivas, 342 S.C. 102, 108, 536 S.E.2d 372, 375 (2000); Shealy v. Doe, 370 S.C. 194, 199, 634 S.E.2d 45, 48 (Ct.App. 2006); City of Camden v. Brassell, 326 S.C. 556, 560, 486 S.E.2d 492, 494 (Ct.App. 1997). The first inquiry is whether the statute's meaning is clear on its face. Wadev. Berkeley County, 348 S.C. 224, 229, 559 S.E.2d 586, 588 (2002); Eagle Container Co., L.L.C v. County ofNewberry, 366 S.C. 611, 622, 622 S.E.2d 733, 738 (Ct.App. 2005). With any question regarding statutory construction and application, the court must always look to legislative intent as determined from the plain language of the statute.