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

8 Citing cases

  1. Eagle Container v. Newberry

    379 S.C. 564 (S.C. 2008)   Cited 17 times

    Acting Justice KITTREDGE: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' opinion in Eagle Container Co. v. County ofNewberry, 366 S.C. 611, 622 S.E.2d 733 (Ct.App. 2005). We are called upon to construe the effect of an amendment to the Newberry County Zoning Ordinance. The Newberry County Council amended the county zoning ordinance on December 11, 2002 by adding a single word — "landfill" — to a list of uses that may be allowed in what is classified as R-2 Rural District. It is undisputed that prior' to the amendment, a landfill was permitted in R-2 districts only as a "special exception.

  2. Bennett v. Investors Title Ins. Co.

    370 S.C. 578 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that issues raised in a brief but not supported by authority are deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal

    David v. McLeod Reg'l Med. Ctr., 367 S.C. 242, 247, 626 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2006); Miller v. Blumenthal Mills,Inc., 365 S.C. 204, 219, 616 S.E.2d 722, 729 (Ct.App. 2005). In determining whether any triable issues of fact exist, the evidence and all reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Law v. S.C.Dep't of Corrections, 368 S.C. 424, 434, 629 S.E.2d 642, 648 (2006); Eagle Container Co., LLC v. County ofNewberry, 366 S.C. 611, 620, 622 S.E.2d 733, 737 (Ct.App. 2005). If triable issues exist, those issues must go the jury.

  3. Bennett v. Investors Title Ins. Co.

    370 S.C. 561 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 4 times

    David v. McLeod Reg'l Med. Ctr., 367 S.C. 242, 247, 626 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2006); Miller v. Blumenthal Mills, Inc., 365 S.C. 204, 219, 616 S.E.2d 722, 729 (Ct.App. 2005). In determining whether any triable issues of fact exist, the evidence and all reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Law v. S.C.Dep't of Corrections, 368 S.C. 424, 434, 629 S.E.2d 642, 648 (2006); Eagle Container Co., LLC v. County ofNewberry, 366 S.C. 611, 620, 622 S.E.2d 733, 737 (Ct.App. 2005). If triable issues exist, those issues must go the jury.

  4. Livingston v. The Reg'l Med. Ctr. of Orangeburg & Calhoun Counties

    No. 2024-UP-311 (S.C. Ct. App. Sep. 11, 2024)

    See Eagle Container Co., LLC v. County of Newberry, 366 S.C. 611, 634, 622 S.E.2d 733, 745 (Ct. App. 2005), rev'd on other grounds, 379 S.C. 564, 666 S.E.2d 892 (2008). Accordingly, we find this question is not yet ripe for review.

  5. Singleton v. Sherer

    377 S.C. 185 (S.C. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 68 times
    Holding a landowner was not liable to an invitee who was aware of the condition and who "voluntarily exposed himself to any potential danger posed by the" condition

    "In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, [an appellate court] applies the same standard that governs the trial court under Rule 56, SCRCP: summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Pittman v.Grand Strand Entm't, Inc., 363 S.C. 531, 536, 611 S.E.2d 922, 925 (2005); Young v. South Carolina Dep't ofDisabilities Special Needs, 374 S.C. 360, 649 S.E.2d 488 (2007); Henderson v. Allied Signal, Inc., 373 S.C. 179, 644 S.E.2d 724 (2007); Eagle Container Co., LLC v.County of Newberry, 366 S.C. 611, 622 S.E.2d 733 (Ct.App. 2005); B B Liquors, Inc. v. O'Neil, 361 S.C. 267, 603 S.E.2d 629 (Ct.App. 2004). In determining whether any triable issue of fact exists, the evidence and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

  6. Bradley v. Doe

    374 S.C. 622 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 10 times
    In 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).

  7. Moore v. Weinberg

    373 S.C. 209 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 56 times
    Reversing the grant of summary judgment on a negligence cause of action against an attorney who, in his capacity as an escrow agent, disbursed the escrowed funds in violation of a written assignment that he himself had drafted

    "In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, [an appellate court] applies the same standard that governs the trial court under Rule 56, SCRCP: summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Pittman v. Grand Strand Entm't, Inc., 363 S.C. 531, 536, 611 S.E.2d 922, 925 (2005); Eagle Container Co., LLC v.County of Newberry, 366 S.C. 611, 622 S.E.2d 733 (Ct.App. 2005); B B Liquors, Inc. v. O'Neil, 361 S.C. 267, 603 S.E.2d 629 (Ct.App. 2004). In determining whether any triable issue of fact exists, the evidence and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

  8. Shealy v. Doe

    370 S.C. 194 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 23 times
    Finding 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.