- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Eagle Container v. County of Newberry
366 S.C. 611 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005)2 Citing cases
Bradley v. Doe
374 S.C. 622 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 10 timesIn Bradley, the court held that the affiant witnesses could not satisfy the affidavit requirement of the statute because "none of the affiants actually saw Bradley swerve to avoid a trash bag in the road and collide with the tree."
The first question of statutory interpretation is whether the statute's meaning is clear on its face. Wade v. Berkeley County, 348 S.C. 224, 229, 559 S.E.2d 586, 588 (2002); Eagle Container Co.,LLC v. County of Newberry, 366 S.C. 611, 622, 622 S.E.2d 733, 738 (Ct.App. 2005) ( cert. granted January 31, 2007). When a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed, and this Court has no right to impose another meaning. Catawba Indian Tribe of SouthCarolina v. State, 372 S.C. 519, 524-26, 642 S.E.2d 751, 754 (2007); see Vaughn v. Bernhardt, 345 S.C. 196, 198, 547 S.E.2d 869, 870 (2001).
Shealy v. Doe
370 S.C. 194 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 23 timesFinding an issue abandoned on appeal when the appellant failed to cite supporting authority for his position and made conclusory arguments
Mid-State AutoAuction of Lexington, Inc. v. Altman, 324 S.C. 65, 69, 476 S.E.2d 690, 692 (1996). The first question of statutory interpretation is whether the statute's meaning is clear on its face. Wade v. Berkeley County, 348 S.C. 224, 229, 559 S.E.2d 586, 588 (2002); Eagle Container Co., LLC v. Countyof Newberry, 366 S.C. 611, 622, 622 S.E.2d 733, 738 (Ct.App. 2005). When a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed, and this Court has no right to impose another meaning.