Supreme Court of South Carolina· 10/19/1994
Plowman v. Bagnal
Citations
- 450 S.E.2d 36
- 316 S.C. 283
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- acknowledging that \controlling persons\ in corporation are potentially personally liable for violation of South Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act
- acknowledging “controlling persons” of corporation are potentially personally liable for violations of Unfair Trade Practices Act
- ‘‘directors and officers are not liable for [a] corporation’s unfair trade practices unless they personally commit, participate in, direct, or authorize the commission of a violation of the [South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act]’’
- “[W]e hold that in private actions under the UTPA, directors and officers are not liable for the corporation’s unfair trade practices unless they personally commit, participate in, direct, or authorize the commission of a violation of the UTPA.”
- “[W]e hold that in private actions under the UTPA, directors and officers are not liable for the corporation’s unfair trade practices unless they personally commit, participate in, direct, or authorize the commission of a violation of the UTPA.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Harwell, Chandler, Moore, Toal, Finney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Saltiel v. GSI Consultants, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey· 2002-01-23· cited 160×
- Rowe v. HyattSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1996-03-25· cited 37×
- BPS, INC. v. WorthyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2005-01-10· cited 27×
- Bessinger v. Food Lion, Inc.D. South Carolina· 2003-11-20· cited 25×
- Davis v. NationsCredit Financial Services Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1997-04-14· cited 14×
- Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Employee Resource Management, Inc.D. South Carolina· 2001-03-29· cited 10×
- Reliance v. LOTT GROUPNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2004-07-06· cited 4×
- Crago v. Capital Advantage Finance & Development, Inc.D. South Carolina· 2007-01-03· cited 3×
- Joseph General Contracting, Inc. v. CoutoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2015-07-21
- Neeltec Enterprises, Inc. v. LongCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2013-02-27
Cites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Education SocietySupreme Court· 1937-11-08· cited 242×
- Donsco, Inc. v. Casper Corp.Third Circuit· 1978-10-31· cited 175×
- Kennedy v. Columbia Lumber & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1989-09-25· cited 119×
- Grayson v. Nordic Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1979-08-30· cited 78×
- Eastern Star, Inc. v. Union Building Materials Corp.Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 1985-11-26· cited 55×
- Gilstrap Ex Rel. Gilstrap v. South Carolina Budget & Control BoardSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1992-08-10· cited 43×
- State Ex Rel. McLeod v. C & L CORP. INC.Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1984-02-24· cited 35×
- P. F. Collier & Son Corporation, P. F. Collier, Inc., and Crowell Collier & MacMillan Inc. v. Federal Trade CommissionSixth Circuit· 1970-05-27· cited 27×
- Great American Homebuilders, Inc. v. GerhartTex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)· 1986-01-30· cited 23×
- State ex rel. McLeod v. BrownSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1982-08-24· cited 19×
- State Ex Rel. Medlock v. Nest Egg Society Today, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1986-09-02· cited 11×
- Moy v. Schreiber Deed Security Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-01-15· cited 11×
- Hunt v. RabonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1980-12-03· cited 9×
- State Ex Rel. McLeod v. VIP Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1985-09-09· cited 3×
- Smith v. Burdette Chrysler Dodge Corp.D. South Carolina· 1991-10-04· cited 3×
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.