Gleaton v. Orangeburg County
Syllabus
This is an appeal in an action for slander of title. The story began with a flawed tax sale, but there were several mistakes for years after. The master-in-equity found in favor of Orangeburg County based on findings that the County did not publish a false statement impugning the owner's title and did not act with malice. We agree with the owner's arguments that the record does not support the master's findings and that the master did not apply the proper legal standard. Therefore, we reverse and remand.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that an official acts within his discretionary authority if he “perform[s] a legitimate job-related function ... through means that [are] within his power to utilize”
- noting that the expressiveness of an appellant’s conduct is determined from the viewpoint of a “reasonable person”
- reasoning that defendant teacher’s classroom behavior while disciplining students was part of her dis- cretionary duty even if the challenged behavior might have been unconstitutional
- reasoning that defendant teacher’s classroom behavior while disciplining students was part of her dis- cretionary duty even if the challenged behavior might have been unconstitutional
- reasoning that defendant teacher’s classroom behavior while disciplining students was part of her dis- cretionary duty even if the challenged behavior might have been unconstitutional
- noting that the student “did not say anything” or “disrupt the class,” and his “behavior was not directed ‘toward’ anyone or any group”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
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.