Hennes v. Shaw

30 Citing cases

  1. Morris v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

    Civil Action No. 0:16-cv-01772-JMC (D.S.C. Mar. 17, 2017)   Cited 2 times
    Referencing Hennes v. Shaw, 397 S.C. 391, 399, 725 S.E.2d 501, 506 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012)

    Additionally, because Plaintiffs cannot establish that Defendant breach the aforementioned settlement agreements, Defendant is also entitled to dismissal of the breach of contract claim. Hennes v. Shaw, 725 S.E.2d 501, 506 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012) ("To recover for a breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove: (1) a binding contract; (2) a breach of contract; and (3) damages proximately resulting from the breach.")

  2. Fed. Logistics v. DMP Constr.

    No. 2023-UP-015 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2023)

    "When reviewing a motion for directed verdict . . ., the appellate court applies the same standard as the circuit court." Hennes v. Shaw, 397 S.C. 391, 398, 725 S.E.2d 501, 505 (Ct. App. 2012). The rule in South Carolina is that on motions for . . . directed verdict, . . . the evidence and all reasonable inferences which have to be drawn from it must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and if there is any testimony tending to prove allegations of the complaint, the motions must be refused.

  3. Edwards v. Jordan

    Appellate Case No. 2012-211394 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2013)

    charges; (2) declining to grant his motion for a directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) because Jordan presented no evidence supporting jury charges on comparative negligence or open and obvious condition; and (3) denying his alternative motions for new trial nisi additur and new trial absolute because he presented evidence of his pain and suffering, and the verdict amount was insufficient and grossly inadequate. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether the trial court erred in charging the jury on the issues of comparative negligence and open and obvious condition, we find there was evidence in the record regarding these issues, and therefore, the court correctly charged the jury accordingly: Magnolia N. Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Heritage Cmtys., Inc., 397 S.C. 348, 362, 725 S.E.2d 112, 120 (Ct. App. 2012) (holding the trial court need only charge the current and correct law of South Carolina); Hennes v. Shaw, 397 S.C. 391, 402, 725 S.E.2d 501, 507 (Ct. App. 2012) ("In reviewing an alleged error in jury instructions, we are mindful that an appellate court will not reverse the [trial] court's decision absent an abuse of discretion."); Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 404, 663 S.E.2d 30, 33 (2008) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or is not supported by the evidence."); Hennes, 397 S.C. at 402, 725 S.E.2d at 507 (stating that in our review, this court must consider the trial court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial); Pittman v. Stevens, 364 S.C. 337, 340, 613 S.E.2d 378, 380 (2005) ("A trial court's refusal to give a properly requested charge is reversible error only when the requesting party can demonstrate prejudice from the refusal.

  4. Young v. AMISUB of S.C., Inc.

    Civil Action No.: 0:18-cv-01601-JMC (D.S.C. Nov. 1, 2018)   Cited 3 times

    "Valuable consideration may consist of 'some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other.'" Hennes v. Shaw, 725 S.E.2d 501, 505 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Prestwick Golf Club, Inc. v. Prestwick Ltd. P'ship, 503 S.E.2d 184, 186 (S.C. Ct. App. 1988)). Additionally, "[i]t has long been a paradigm of South Carolina law that when a contract signed by one party only is accepted by the other party, it becomes binding upon both just as if it were signed by both."

  5. Gillins v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc.

    No. 2:16-cv-00795-DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    "Conversion is the unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belong to another, to the alteration of the condition or the exclusion of the owner's rights." Hennes v. Shaw, 725 S.E.2d 501, 508 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Schmauch, 582 S.E.2d at 442). "Conversion is a wrongful act that emanates by either a wrongful taking or wrongful detention."

  6. Edwards v. Jordan

    2013-UP-449 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2013)

    We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether the trial court erred in charging the jury on the issues of comparative negligence and open and obvious condition, we find there was evidence in the record regarding these issues, and therefore, the court correctly charged the jury accordingly: Magnolia N. Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Heritage Cmtys., Inc., 397 S.C. 348, 362, 725 S.E.2d 112, 120 (Ct. App. 2012) (holding the trial court need only charge the current and correct law of South Carolina); Hennes v. Shaw, 397 S.C. 391, 402, 725 S.E.2d 501, 507 (Ct. App. 2012) ("In reviewing an alleged error in jury instructions, we are mindful that an appellate court will not reverse the [trial] court's decision absent an abuse of discretion."); Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 404, 663 S.E.2d 30, 33 (2008) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or is not supported by the evidence.")

  7. Brewington v. City of Myrtle Beach

    No. 2024-UP-197 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 29, 2024)

    See Camp, 310 S.C. at 517, 426 S.E.2d at 305 ("The elements of a cause of action for tortious interference with contract are: (1) existence of a valid contract; (2) the wrongdoer's knowledge thereof; (3) his intentional procurement of its breach; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) resulting damages."); Hennes v. Shaw, 397 S.C. 391, 402, 725 S.E.2d 501, 507 (Ct. App. 2012) ("In reviewing an alleged error in jury instructions, we are mindful that an appellate court will not reverse the circuit court's decision absent an abuse of discretion."); Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 404, 663 S.E.2d 30, 33 (2008) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or is not supported by the evidence."); Pittman v. Stevens, 364 S.C. 337, 340, 613 S.E.2d 378, 379 (2005)

  8. Marsh Waterproofing, Inc. v. Steeple Dorchester Ltd.

    No. 2023-UP-210 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 24, 2023)

    See Hennes v. Shaw, 397 S.C. 391, 399, 725 S.E.2d 501, 505 (Ct. App. 2012) ("The necessary elements of a contract are offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration."); Prestwick Golf Club, Inc. v. Prestwick Ltd. P'ship, 331 S.C. 385, 389, 503 S.E.2d 184, 186 (Ct. App. 1998) ("Valuable consideration to support a contract may consist of some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other."); Hennes, 397 S.C. at 399, 725 S.E.2d at 506

  9. Sapp v. Wheeler

    402 S.C. 502 (S.C. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 10 times

    “In reviewing an alleged error in jury instructions, we are mindful that an appellate court will not reverse the [trial] court's decision absent an abuse of discretion.” Hennes v. Shaw, 397 S.C. 391, 402, 725 S.E.2d 501, 507 (Ct.App.2012). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or is not supported by the evidence.”

  10. Broyhill v. Resolution Mgmt. Consultants, Inc.

    401 S.C. 466 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that the independent personal stake exception did not apply where the plaintiff, a former employee of defendants, did not produce any evidence that defendants acted outside of their official capacities as officers of the former employer in bringing an action against plaintiff because the defendants could not conspire with their employer

    “In reviewing an alleged error in jury instructions, we are mindful that an appellate court will not reverse the [trial] court's decision absent an abuse of discretion.” Hennes v. Shaw, 397 S.C. 391, 402, 725 S.E.2d 501, 507 (Ct.App.2012). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or is not supported by the evidence.”