· 7/31/2006
Rushing v. McKinney
Citations
- 633 S.E.2d 917
- 370 S.C. 280
- 2006 S.C. App. LEXIS 151
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding the absence of clearly articulated terms between the parties precludes a party's recovery on the basis of promissory estoppel
- holding that an agreement with unclear terms was ambiguous
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Beatty, Hearn, Huff
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.