I recently moved the South Carolina Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal from an order that set aside a consent judgment. I had a case from the Court dead on point, so I foresaw clear sailing. Opposing counsel then twisted my plot. Continue reading
Lay persons may represent themselves in the South Carolina Court of Appeals. But they will be held to the same standards that apply to attorneys. So pro se appellants face the same error-preservation and procedural rules that have tripped up many attorneys. Continue reading
Last Wednesday, the South Carolina Supreme Court agreed with me that an insurance company cannot contractually eliminate a resident relative’s ability to stack underinsurance motorist coverage from other companies. Continue reading
Last month, I posted on attorneys who create accidents with contextomy. Sounds weird, I know, without defining the terms.
“Accident,” in this sense, is a logical fallacy in which one advocates a general rule without acknowledging any exceptions. Contextomy means taking something out of context. The post noted that the two often go together. Continue reading
Ever had opposing counsel misrepresent your argument? This post ends a series on logical fallacies that I have faced handling South Carolina appeals. Misrepresenting an opposing argument falls in a family of fallacies known as “ignoratio elenchi,” literally meaning “ignorance of refutation.” Continue reading
Mark Twain once said, “All generalizations are false, including this one.” This aphorism highlights some of the continuing fallacies that I have run across in handling South Carolina appeals. This post covers three fallacies over generalizations. Continue reading
This post continues the series on fallacies that I have faced while handling South Carolina appeals. The last one discussed ad hominem or personal attacks and suggested how to deflate them. This one covers a particular type of personal attack and when it may properly work.
In the “tu quoque” attack, one charges the opposing party with hypocrisy. The argument is “Yeah, you’re another” or “you’re one to talk.” It is fallacious because two wrongs do not make a right. Continue reading