Supreme Court of South Carolina· 4/1/1991

Noisette v. Ismail

Citations

403 S.E.2d 122
304 S.C. 56
1991 S.C. LEXIS 66

How courts have described this case

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

holding that where a trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument raised, and appellant makes no Rule 59(e) motion to obtain a ruling, the appellate court may not address the issue
holding that issue not explicitly ruled on by the trial judge and not raised in a Rule 59(e) motion was not preserved for appellate review
holding that, when the trial court does not explicitly rule on a question and the appellant fails to make a motion under Rule 59(e
holding that where a trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument raised, and appellant makes no Rule 59(e) motion to obtain a ruling, the appellate court may not address the issue
holding that where the circuit court did not explicitly rule on an argument the issue was not properly before the court of appeals and should not have been addressed by it
holding that where a trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument raised, and appellant makes no Rule 59(e) motion to obtain a ruling, the appellate court may not address the issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Finney, Gregory, Harwell, Chandler, Toal

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

78 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Noisette v. Ismail

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Noisette v. Ismail
Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1989-07-03· cited 14×

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.