Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 7/3/2006

Doe v. Doe

Citations

  • 634 S.E.2d 51
  • 370 S.C. 206
  • 2006 S.C. App. LEXIS 137

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating that while marital fault is an appropriate consideration for equitable apportionment it does not justify a severe penalty
  • holding wife’s adultery caused the breakup of the marriage, and thus, was an appropriate consideration for equitable apportionment
  • finding that an issue not raised to the family court was not preserved for appellate review
  • holding a wife's argument was not preserved for appellate review because she failed to point out the alleged error to the family court in her Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion
  • finding South Carolina law “expressly disallow[s] fault as a penalty” in determining equitable apportionment between a husband and wife
  • holding the wife's argument regarding the family court's identification and valuation of marital property was not preserved for appellate review because she failed to point out the alleged error to the family court in her Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hearn, Anderson, Kittredge

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

33 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.