Sherman v. W B Enterprises, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Murdaugh

    2:22-1307-RMG (D.S.C. Jun. 18, 2024)

    “When the existence of a contract is questioned and the evidence either conflicts or gives rise to more than one inference, the issue of the contract's existence becomes a question for the finder of fact.” Sherman v. W & B Enterprises, Inc., 592 S.E.2d 307, 310 (S.C. Ct. App. 2003).

  2. Hardwick v. Jones

    Appellate Case No. 2011-190087 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 27, 2012)

    See Pee Dee Stores, Inc. v. Doyle, 381 S.C. 234, 241, 672 S.E.2d 799, 802 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In South Carolina jurisprudence, settlement agreements are viewed as contracts."); Sherman v. W & B Enterprises, Inc., 357 S.C. 243, 250, 592 S.E.2d 307, 310 (Ct. App. 2003) ("When the existence of a contract is questioned and the evidence either conflicts or gives rise to more than one inference, the issue of the contract's existence becomes a question for the finder of fact."). Specifically, Hardwick's demand letter constituted an offer to settle the case for the policy limits, and Jones' response letter constituted an acceptance of the offer.

  3. Tally v. Roberts

    Appellate Case No. 2010-164226 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 27, 2012)

    Cf. Rule 4(d)(3), SCRCP (requiring service of process on a corporation or partnership to be made by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process). Tally's remaining issues are affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Reiss v. Reiss, 392 S.C. 198, 206-07, 708 S.E.2d 799, 803 (Ct. App. 2011) (indicating that an unappealed ruling becomes the law of the case and cannot be considered on appeal); Sherman v. W & B Enters., Inc., 357 S.C. 243, 247, 592 S.E.2d 307, 309 (Ct. App. 2003) ("In an action at law, on appeal of a case tried without a jury, the findings of fact of the judge will not be disturbed upon appeal unless found to be without evidence which reasonably supports the judge's findings." (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Hancock v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 S.C. 168, 171, 584 S.E.2d 398, 399 (Ct. App. 2003) (concluding that an issue not addressed in the trial court's order was not preserved for appellate review because the appellant did not file a motion under Rule 59(e), SCRCP, seeking a ruling on the issue).

  4. Cedar Cove Homeowners Ass'n v. Dipietro

    368 S.C. 254 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Holding "an action to enforce restrictive covenants by injunction is in equity"

    On appeal from an action at law that was tried without a jury, the appellate court can correct errors of law, but the findings of fact will not be disturbed unless found to be without evidence which reasonably supports the judge's findings. Townes Assocs. Ltd. v. City ofGreenville, 266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976); Ellie,Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 594 S.E.2d 485 (Ct.App. 2004) (citing Cohens v. Atkins, 333 S.C. 345, 509 S.E.2d 286 (Ct.App. 1998)); Sherman v. W B Enterprises, Inc., 357 S.C. 243, 592 S.E.2d 307 (Ct.App. 2003). An action to enforce restrictive covenants by injunction is in equity.