Supreme Court of South Carolina· 8/31/1951
Machado v. Machado
Citations
- 220 S.C. 90
- 66 S.E.2d 629
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “While the relief granted was not what was specifically prayed for, it was consistent with the case made by the bill and proof, and could be awarded under the general prayer.”
- “We think under our decisions that the conduct of appellant was sufficient to justify the respondent in leaving the home and that she is entitled to separate maintenance and support.”
- \We think under our decisions that the conduct of appellant was sufficient to justify the respondent in leaving the home and that she is entitled to separate maintenance and support.\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fishburne, Henderson, Oxner, Seuices, Tayeor
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Nienow v. NienowSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1977-02-09· cited 103×
- McLaughlin v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1964-05-13· cited 33×
- Brewer v. BrewerSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1963-02-13· cited 29×
- Mincey v. MinceySupreme Court of South Carolina· 1954-02-01· cited 26×
- Murdock v. MurdockSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1963-11-13· cited 26×
- Simonds v. SimondsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1956-05-22· cited 25×
- Sutton v. SuttonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1987-03-02· cited 23×
- Inabinet v. InabinetSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1960-02-24· cited 21×
- Piana v. PianaSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1961-12-12· cited 19×
- Forester v. ForesterSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1954-12-07· cited 14×
- Poliakoff v. PoliakoffSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1952-04-30· cited 13×
- Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1969-11-05· cited 13×
- Frazier v. FrazierSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1955-09-15· cited 12×
- Miller v. MillerSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1954-05-11· cited 12×
- Simonds v. SimondsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1957-12-18· cited 11×
- Ariail v. AriailCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1988-05-09· cited 11×
- Todd v. ToddSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1963-04-18· cited 10×
- Bond v. BondSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1969-03-11· cited 10×
- Yeich v. YeichCourt of Appeals of Virginia· 1990-12-18· cited 10×
- Boozer v. BoozerSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1963-04-24· cited 9×
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Heflin v. HeflinSupreme Court of Virginia· 1941-04-21· cited 49×
- Cochrane v. CochraneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1939-06-30· cited 40×
- Lynch v. LynchCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1870-12-05· cited 35×
- Bradford v. BradfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1936-12-02· cited 24×
- Horton v. HortonSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1905-04-08· cited 19×
- Csanyi v. CsanyiNew Jersey Court of Chancery· 1921-07-30· cited 14×
- Sales v. SalesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)· 1927-12-02· cited 12×
- Succhierelli v. SucchierelliNew Jersey Court of Chancery· 1927-06-10· cited 6×
- Carboni v. CarboniMontana Supreme Court· 1935-03-18· cited 5×
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.