Huff v. Jennings

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that \[w]rongfully recording an unfounded claim against the property of another generally is actionable as slander of title\
• holding that, although the court was directly addressing a claim for slander of title for the first time in South Carolina jurisprudence, “South Carolina law, through its incorporation of the common law of England, recognizes a cause of action for slander of title”
• requiring special damages as an element of a claim for slander of title and defining special damages as the pecuniary losses resulting from the effect of the conduct of third persons
• adopting the elements of slander of title outlined in the Restatement (Second
• finding the malice element met because a jury could conclude that the defendant’s interpretation of the law was unreasonable and that the defendant only filed the lien against the property after learning that the plaintiff was purchasing the interest in the property
• finding an attorney's practice of filing liens on property belonging to her clients when they failed to pay their bills was not statutorily authorized because section 20-3-145 allowed a lien for attorneys' fees only when an order by the family court awarded the fees

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).