On Wednesday, the South Carolina Supreme Court declined to disturb a Court of Appeals decision that upheld a tort victim’s $ 450,000 jury verdict. Curtis v. Blake, 392 S.C. 494, 709 S.E.2d 79 (Ct.App. 2011), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, Op. No. 2012-MO-043 (S.C. filed October 24, 2012).
On appeal, I defended the verdict by pointing to the Court’s limited, “any evidence” standard of review for a jury’s factual findings. Continue reading
Earlier posts here, here, and here described the various standards of review that the South Carolina appellate courts employ. The South Carolina Bar has published a handy flow chart — SC Standards of Review. Continue reading
This post finishes up the discussion on standards of review — how much deference the appellate courts pay to the rulings being appealed. Earlier posts discussed de novo review for questions of law, the any evidence review of factual findings in actions at law, the preponderance review for factual findings in actions in equity, and the abuse of discretion review for most pre-trial and trial rulings.
This post covers appeals from administrative agencies, particularly the Workers Compensation Commission. Continue reading
The posts on standards of review have covered the difference between questions of law and issues of fact, and between actions that are tried at law and in equity. This post explains the standards of review for certain pre-trial and trial rulings. Continue reading
A recent post covered the South Carolina courts’ differing standards of review for a trial judge’s legal conclusions and the fact-finder’s findings of fact. The universe of factual findings further breaks down into two more categories. Continue reading
This post and the next three explore the South Carolina appellate courts’ varying degrees of deference to trial court rulings.This post addresses divides the universe of possible appellate issues into issues of law and questions of fact, explains why the two are treated differently, and offers a tip on how the use the difference. The next three posts cover the differing standards of review for factual findings made in actions at law and in equity, certain rulings made pre-trial and at trial, and factual findings by administrative agencies. Continue reading