Minter v. GOCT, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating “if the evidence does not yield more than one inference, a directed verdict in favor of the moving party is proper”
• explaining there must be \evidence of an independent fraudulent act which accompanied the breach\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Moore v. Moore
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2004-06-28· cited 63×
• Hennes v. Shaw
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2012-02-29· cited 20×
• MARO v. Lewis
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2010-07-28· cited 14×
• D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Wescott Land Co.
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2012-07-11· cited 8×
• Tomlinson v. Mixon
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2006-01-09· cited 6×
• Encore Technology Group, LLC v. Keone Trask & Clear Touch
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2021-11-03
• Marshall Griffin v. Tony Fiovino
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2025-07-16

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Cock-N-Bull Steak House, Inc. v. Generali Insurance
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1996-01-22· cited 73×
• Powers v. CALVERT FIRE INS. CO.
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1950-02-16· cited 52×
• Whisenant v. James Island Corporation
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1981-08-31· cited 44×
• Dalon v. Golden Lanes, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1996-01-22· cited 23×
• Smith v. Canal Insurance Co.
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1980-08-18· cited 18×
• Petty v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1986-03-24· cited 15×