Log In
  • India
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments

South Carolina Case Commentaries

Medpay “Expenses Incurred” Means Amounts the Insured Is Legally Obligated to Pay—No Recovery of Medicaid Write-Offs

Medpay “Expenses Incurred” Means Amounts the Insured Is Legally Obligated to Pay—No Recovery of Medicaid Write-Offs

Date: Apr 24, 2026
Medpay “Expenses Incurred” Means Amounts the Insured Is Legally Obligated to Pay—No Recovery of Medicaid Write-Offs Case: Alexis Jones v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company Court: Supreme Court...
State v. Garvin: A Probationer’s Right to Counsel Cannot Be Waived by Ambiguous “May Have an Attorney” Notice Without a Meaningful On-the-Record Confirmation of Understanding

State v. Garvin: A Probationer’s Right to Counsel Cannot Be Waived by Ambiguous “May Have an Attorney” Notice Without a Meaningful On-the-Record Confirmation of Understanding

Date: Apr 10, 2026
State v. Garvin: A Probationer’s Right to Counsel Cannot Be Waived by Ambiguous “May Have an Attorney” Notice Without a Meaningful On-the-Record Confirmation of Understanding 1. Introduction In State...
Marketplace Facilitators with Integral Transaction Control Are “Engaged in the Business of Selling” Under S.C. Code § 12-36-910(A)

Marketplace Facilitators with Integral Transaction Control Are “Engaged in the Business of Selling” Under S.C. Code § 12-36-910(A)

Date: Mar 23, 2026
Marketplace Facilitators with Integral Transaction Control Are “Engaged in the Business of Selling” Under S.C. Code § 12-36-910(A) Amazon Services, LLC v. South Carolina Department of Revenue (S.C....
Nine-Month Definite Suspension for Repeated Diligence/Communication Failures Under Discipline by Consent (In re Stoddard)

Nine-Month Definite Suspension for Repeated Diligence/Communication Failures Under Discipline by Consent (In re Stoddard)

Date: Mar 23, 2026
Nine-Month Definite Suspension for Repeated Diligence/Communication Failures Under Discipline by Consent Case: In the Matter of David F. Stoddard, Respondent (S.C. Sup. Ct. Op. No. 28323) Date Filed:...
Public Reprimand as the Maximum Disciplinary Sanction for Former Judicial Officers (and Prospective Disqualification by Consent)

Public Reprimand as the Maximum Disciplinary Sanction for Former Judicial Officers (and Prospective Disqualification by Consent)

Date: Mar 23, 2026
Public Reprimand as the Maximum Disciplinary Sanction for Former Judicial Officers (and Prospective Disqualification by Consent) I. Introduction In the Matter of Judge Curtis G. Clark, Former...
Definite Suspension and Remedial Compliance Conditions for Misrepresentation, Social-Media Confidentiality Breach, and False Affidavit/Notarization Failures

Definite Suspension and Remedial Compliance Conditions for Misrepresentation, Social-Media Confidentiality Breach, and False Affidavit/Notarization Failures

Date: Feb 20, 2026
Definite Suspension and Remedial Compliance Conditions for Misrepresentation, Social-Media Confidentiality Breach, and False Affidavit/Notarization Failures 1. Introduction In the Matter of Tasha...
401 Water Quality Certifications in South Carolina: Substantial-Evidence Deference, Agency Navigability Determinations, and No Mandatory Environmental-Justice Review

401 Water Quality Certifications in South Carolina: Substantial-Evidence Deference, Agency Navigability Determinations, and No Mandatory Environmental-Justice Review

Date: Jan 31, 2026
401 Water Quality Certifications in South Carolina: Substantial-Evidence Deference, Agency Navigability Determinations, and No Mandatory Environmental-Justice Review Introduction In Blue Ridge...
Mistrial Does Not Reopen Protection of Persons and Property Act Immunity: No Second Pretrial Immunity Hearing After a Deadlocked Jury

Mistrial Does Not Reopen Protection of Persons and Property Act Immunity: No Second Pretrial Immunity Hearing After a Deadlocked Jury

Date: Jan 31, 2026
Mistrial Does Not Reopen Protection of Persons and Property Act Immunity: No Second Pretrial Immunity Hearing After a Deadlocked Jury Case: State v. Kierin M. Dennis (S.C. Sup. Ct. Op. No. 28314)...
“Adjacent” Requires Touching Under S.C. Code § 5-3-100, and Standing Exists When an Annexation Ordinance Invades Another City’s Limits or a Third Party’s Land

“Adjacent” Requires Touching Under S.C. Code § 5-3-100, and Standing Exists When an Annexation Ordinance Invades Another City’s Limits or a Third Party’s Land

Date: Jan 22, 2026
“Adjacent” Requires Touching Under S.C. Code § 5-3-100, and Standing Exists When an Annexation Ordinance Invades Another City’s Limits or a Third Party’s Land Introduction In National Trust for...
Section 15-36-100(A)(3) Permits Cross-Discipline Expert Affidavits—and Limits Claims to What the Affiant Will Actually Support

Section 15-36-100(A)(3) Permits Cross-Discipline Expert Affidavits—and Limits Claims to What the Affiant Will Actually Support

Date: Jan 22, 2026
Section 15-36-100(A)(3) Permits Cross-Discipline Expert Affidavits—and Limits Claims to What the Affiant Will Actually Support I. Introduction In Charles Blanchard Construction Corp., Inc. v. 480...
Automated-Refraction Prescription Bans Survive Rational Basis Review Under South Carolina’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses

Automated-Refraction Prescription Bans Survive Rational Basis Review Under South Carolina’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses

Date: Jan 22, 2026
Automated-Refraction Prescription Bans Survive Rational Basis Review Under South Carolina’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses I. Introduction In Opternative, Inc. v. South Carolina Board of...
SCUSRAP Fully Supersedes the Common-Law Rule: No Perpetuities Limit Applies to Nondonative Nonvested Interests Excluded by § 27-6-50

SCUSRAP Fully Supersedes the Common-Law Rule: No Perpetuities Limit Applies to Nondonative Nonvested Interests Excluded by § 27-6-50

Date: Jan 9, 2026
SCUSRAP Fully Supersedes the Common-Law Rule: No Perpetuities Limit Applies to Nondonative Nonvested Interests Excluded by § 27-6-50 Case: Spring Valley Interests, LLC v. The Best for Last, LLC (S.C....
State v. Erb: Improvident Mistrials After Jury Polling and the Double Jeopardy Bar on Retrial of Greater and Lesser-Included Offenses

State v. Erb: Improvident Mistrials After Jury Polling and the Double Jeopardy Bar on Retrial of Greater and Lesser-Included Offenses

Date: Nov 30, 2025
State v. Erb: Improvident Mistrials After Jury Polling and the Double Jeopardy Bar on Retrial of Greater and Lesser-Included Offenses I. Introduction The Supreme Court of South Carolina’s substituted...
State v. Eastwood: Polygraph-Context Evidence and False Confessions Under South Carolina Rule 403

State v. Eastwood: Polygraph-Context Evidence and False Confessions Under South Carolina Rule 403

Date: Nov 21, 2025
State v. Eastwood: Polygraph-Context Evidence and False Confessions Under South Carolina Rule 403 I. Introduction In State v. Kenneth Henry Eastwood, Opinion No. 28308 (S.C. Sup. Ct. Nov. 19, 2025),...
No Mid‑Term Increases to Legislative “In‑District Compensation”: South Carolina Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation vs. Expense Reimbursement in Climer v. Loftis

No Mid‑Term Increases to Legislative “In‑District Compensation”: South Carolina Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation vs. Expense Reimbursement in Climer v. Loftis

Date: Nov 16, 2025
No Mid‑Term Increases to Legislative “In‑District Compensation”: South Carolina Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation vs. Expense Reimbursement in Climer v. Loftis Introduction This...
Settlement Language Can “Award” Fees and Contractual Fee Obligations Qualify as “Other Disposition Required by Law”: The South Carolina Supreme Court Clarifies § 1‑7‑150(B) and Forecloses Judicial Fee-Reasonableness Review Absent Statutory Authority

Settlement Language Can “Award” Fees and Contractual Fee Obligations Qualify as “Other Disposition Required by Law”: The South Carolina Supreme Court Clarifies § 1‑7‑150(B) and Forecloses Judicial Fee-Reasonableness Review Absent Statutory Authority

Date: Nov 16, 2025
Settlement Language Can “Award” Fees and Contractual Fee Obligations Qualify as “Other Disposition Required by Law”: The South Carolina Supreme Court Clarifies § 1‑7‑150(B) and Forecloses Judicial...
When “Rent Payments Due” Means What? Interpreting Termination Remedies, Parol Evidence, and Liquidated-Damages Scrutiny in a Public‑Private Parking Contract

When “Rent Payments Due” Means What? Interpreting Termination Remedies, Parol Evidence, and Liquidated-Damages Scrutiny in a Public‑Private Parking Contract

Date: Nov 16, 2025
When “Rent Payments Due” Means What? Interpreting Termination Remedies, Parol Evidence, and Liquidated-Damages Scrutiny in a Public‑Private Parking Contract Case: Shem Creek Development Group, LLC v....
Thompson v. Killian: RPA Limited to Title 12 Taxes; Class Actions Against Local Governments Permitted Outside Property Tax Disputes; Unjust Enrichment Barred by SCTCA

Thompson v. Killian: RPA Limited to Title 12 Taxes; Class Actions Against Local Governments Permitted Outside Property Tax Disputes; Unjust Enrichment Barred by SCTCA

Date: Nov 7, 2025
Thompson v. Killian: RPA Limited to Title 12 Taxes; Class Actions Against Local Governments Permitted Outside Property Tax Disputes; Unjust Enrichment Barred by SCTCA Introduction In Mark Gregory...
Adoption-with-Review: South Carolina Upholds Party-Drafted PCR Orders and Reaffirms Prejudice-Driven Mitigation Review in Capital Cases

Adoption-with-Review: South Carolina Upholds Party-Drafted PCR Orders and Reaffirms Prejudice-Driven Mitigation Review in Capital Cases

Date: Nov 7, 2025
Adoption-with-Review: South Carolina Upholds Party-Drafted PCR Orders and Reaffirms Prejudice-Driven Mitigation Review in Capital Cases Introduction In Marion Alexander Lindsey v. State, Opinion No....
Planned Developments May Depart from Countywide Parking Rules: South Carolina Supreme Court Affirms PD Flexibility and Rejects Takings/Due Process Claims where Nonexclusive Parking Easement Remains Intact

Planned Developments May Depart from Countywide Parking Rules: South Carolina Supreme Court Affirms PD Flexibility and Rejects Takings/Due Process Claims where Nonexclusive Parking Easement Remains Intact

Date: Nov 1, 2025
Planned Developments May Depart from Countywide Parking Rules: South Carolina Supreme Court Affirms PD Flexibility and Rejects Takings/Due Process Claims where Nonexclusive Parking Easement Remains...
Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • FAQs
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • Campus Connect Fellow Program
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert