Holcombe v. Dan River Mills/Woodside Div.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding the Appellate Panel was not required to allow the doctor's deposition to be taken and entered as evidence where the record reflected that, at the time of the hearing before the single commissioner, a party knew of the testimony of a doctor
• Industrial Commission Rule 67-31 relating to adjournment gives the single commissioner discretionary power with respect to the taking of additional testimony
• where there is a conflict in evidence from the same witness, the Commission’s findings are conclusive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Brown v. LA FRANCE IND., a DIV. OF RIEGEL TEX.
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1985-07-15· cited 24×
• Hoxit v. Michelin Tire Corp.
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-05-20· cited 20×
• Solomon v. W.B. Easton, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1992-03-16· cited 17×
• Harbin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1994-10-03· cited 12×
• Wilkinson v. Palmetto State Transp. Co.
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2006-11-20· cited 4×
• Tims v. J.D. Kitts Construction
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2011-06-15· cited 3×
• Mixson v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1991-02-25

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc.
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1981-03-12· cited 458×
• Sola v. Sunny Slope Farms
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1964-03-10· cited 31×