Green v. Green

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the proper standard of review when determining if a motion was timely served by mail is abuse of discretion
• noting the postal service is not infallible and the postmark date on an envelope is not dispositive evidence of timely service

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Patel v. Patel
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2004-05-24· cited 145×
• Doe v. Doe
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2006-07-03· cited 120×
• Avery v. Avery
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2006-08-14· cited 13×
• Calhoun v. Calhoun
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1998-05-26· cited 10×
• Taylor v. Taylor
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1998-11-16· cited 8×
• Sexton v. Sexton
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1996-04-15· cited 7×
• Floyd v. Morgan
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2007-08-23· cited 3×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Rosen v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1918-01-07· cited 162×
• Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc.
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1993-02-22· cited 91×
• Lide v. Lide
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1981-10-26· cited 67×
• Christy v. Christy
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1994-11-04· cited 21×
• Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1993-12-06· cited 19×
• Brown v. Brown
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1985-06-11· cited 11×
• Smith v. Smith
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1992-05-26· cited 11×
• Beckham v. Durant
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1989-12-18· cited 7×
• Southbridge Properties, Inc. v. Jones
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1987-04-21· cited 4×