Quantcast
Home (page 10)

Tag Archives: Civil Practice

Real Property – Boundary Dispute – Conflicting Evidence – Civil Practice – Appeals (access required)

Williams v. Moore The fact that plaintiffs’ expert used artificial monuments to challenge the accuracy of a plat does not render his testimony incompetent or inadmissible. Although natural boundaries are generally given more weight than artificial monuments, the rule does not provide an order of admissibility such that evidence of artificial boundaries is admissible only when there is no evidence of natural boundaries. We affirm judgment for plaintiffs.

Read More »

Attorneys – Tort/Negligence – Legal Malpractice Claim – Civil Practice – Federal Jurisdiction – Patent Law – Expert Affidavit (access required)

Weil v. Killough The plaintiff-client alleges that the defendant-attorney, who also served as the client’s attorney-in-fact, failed to inform the client when the Patent and Trademark Office sent the attorney notice that a 7.5-year maintenance fee was due on the client’s patent.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Personal Jurisdiction – N.J. Businessmen – Gambling Cruise Ship (access required)

Liverett v. Island Breeze International, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that the individual New Jersey-resident defendants traveled to South Carolina, met with plaintiff to discuss a casino boat project and the terms of an alleged consultation agreement, and failed to pay plaintiff pursuant to the consultation agreement after plaintiff performed under the agreement.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Removal – Diversity Jurisdiction – S.C. Defendants – Fraudulent Joinder Claim – Investment Advisors – Remand (access required)

Maybank v. BB&T Corp. Even though S.C. courts have not addressed whether an investment advisor owes a fiduciary duty to a client, numerous courts in other jurisdictions have acknowledged the fiduciary nature of the relationship between an investment advisor and a client.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Medical Malpractice – Civil Practice – Statute of Limitations – Claim Accrual (access required)

Boyd v. United States Plaintiff was informed after surgery that her bowel had been perforated and re-sectioned. Plaintiff developed chronic diarrhea immediately after surgery, but no medical professional linked the diarrhea to the surgery until 10 months later. Contrary to the parties’ arguments, the court is convinced that plaintiff became aware of her injury and its cause sometime between her surgery and her visit to a nurse practitioner 10 months later.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Service of Process – Pleadings Amendment – Statute of Limitations (access required)

Mims v. Babcock Center, Inc. Plaintiff filed her original complaint on May 29, 2007 but never served it. She filed an amended complaint on May 7, 2008 and served it on May 12, 2008. Reading S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-20(B) and Rule 3(a), SCRCP, together, we find the trial court erred when it granted defendants’ motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process, as well as lack of jurisdiction, and failure to prosecute.

Read More »

Intellectual Property – Patent Infringement – Civil Practice – Pleadings Amendment – Theory of Infringement – Doctrine of Equivalents (access required)

Pure Fishing, Inc. v. Normark Corp. Despite agreeing to a schedule that required it to disclose its theory of infringement (literal infringement, the doctrine of equivalents, or both) by April 15, 2011, plaintiff did not disclose its theory of infringement or move to amend its Aug. 16, 2010 complaint to set out a theory of infringement until June 8, 2012.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Attorney’s Fees – Trade Secrets Act – First Impression — No Bad Faith Showing – Frivolous Proceedings Act – Copyright Act (access required)

Uhlig LLC v. Shirley Even though plaintiff’s claims against defendant Eventelope, LLC remained until plaintiff withdrew them just prior to submission of the case to the jury, plaintiff was substantially unable to complete the discovery which would have revealed the extent of Eventelope’s involvement in the misappropriation of trade secrets due to the parties’ disputes over the proper protocol for the examination of defendants’ electronic files.

Read More »