Supreme Court of South Carolina· 6/6/2005
Wooten v. Wooten
Citations
- 615 S.E.2d 98
- 364 S.C. 532
- 2005 S.C. LEXIS 159
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating on writ of certiorari in a domestic relations case, “an appellate court has the authority to find the facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence”
- stating on writ of certiorari in a domestic relations case, \an appellate court has the authority to find the facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence\
- holding “[e]ven though Husband prevailed on two of the equitable division issues in this appeal, the beneficial results obtained are only one of several factors to be considered by the family court in deciding whether or not to award attorney’s fees”
- stating the burden of proving a debt incurred prior to marital litigation is non-marital rests on the party who makes that assertion
- defining marital debt as \debt incurred for the joint benefit of the parties regardless of whether the parties are legally liable or whether one party is individually liable\
- finding no error when the family court did not expressly consider the tax consequences resulting from its award to the wife of one-half the value of the husband's 401(k
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: III, Burnett, Toal, Moore, Waller, Pleicones
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
52 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Lewis v. LewisSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2011-05-09· cited 543×
- Strickland v. StricklandSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2007-08-27· cited 65×
- Eason v. EasonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2009-08-31· cited 55×
- In Re Marriage of WalkerAppellate Court of Illinois· 2008-11-26· cited 41×
- Gainey v. GaineyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2009-03-04· cited 30×
- Smith v. SmithCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2009-12-09· cited 25×
- Reiss v. ReissCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2011-02-23· cited 25×
- Nicholson v. NicholsonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2008-06-06· cited 22×
- Browning v. BrowningCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2005-10-17· cited 20×
- Browder v. BrowderCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2009-03-26· cited 18×
- Pruitt v. PruittCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2010-08-04· cited 18×
- Bojilov v. BojilovCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2018-09-19· cited 18×
- Dawkins v. DawkinsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2010-01-04· cited 17×
- Shorb v. ShorbCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2007-03-19· cited 17×
- Srivastava v. SrivastavaCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2014-12-23· cited 17×
- Clearwater Trust v. BuntingSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2006-02-06· cited 16×
- Mr. T v. Ms. TCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2008-04-15· cited 15×
- Ables v. GladdenSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2008-07-14· cited 14×
- Farmer v. FarmerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2010-05-03· cited 14×
- Thomson v. ThomsonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2008-04-25· cited 13×
Cites
42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Glasscock v. GlasscockSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-03-11· cited 284×
- Stevenson v. StevensonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1981-06-22· cited 116×
- Cherry v. ThomassonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1981-07-09· cited 113×
- Donahue v. DonahueSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1989-09-25· cited 100×
- Allen v. AllenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2001-10-29· cited 90×
- Bowers v. BowersCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2002-02-25· cited 80×
- Berkebile v. OutenSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1993-01-11· cited 79×
- Jenkins v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2001-04-16· cited 73×
- Mallett v. MallettCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1996-05-28· cited 59×
- Mitchell v. MitchellSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1984-08-27· cited 54×
- Hardy v. HardyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1993-04-15· cited 47×
- Smith v. SmithCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1997-06-16· cited 44×
- McElveen v. McElveenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1998-09-14· cited 39×
- Hickum v. HickumCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1995-10-30· cited 29×
- Brown v. BrownSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1983-05-04· cited 28×
- Ellerbe v. EllerbeCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1996-07-15· cited 25×
- Sutton v. SuttonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1987-03-02· cited 23×
- Josey v. JoseyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1986-12-29· cited 22×
- Tiffault v. TiffaultSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-02-04· cited 21×
- Whitfield v. HanksSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1982-06-29· cited 21×
Other cases named Wooten v. Wooten
15 other CourtListener records share this case name.
- Wooten v. WootenDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1987-07-24· cited 10×
- Wooten v. WootenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2003-06-05· cited 9×
- Wooten v. WootenSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1928-04-23· cited 6×
- Wooten v. WootenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2003-10-20· cited 5×
- Wooten v. WootenSupreme Court of Alabama· 1959-10-08· cited 5×
- Wooten v. WootenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2003-03-10· cited 4×
- Wooten v. WootenSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1959-11-06· cited 3×
- Wooten v. WootenDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1968-08-13· cited 3×
- Wooten v. WootenWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1998-11-20· cited 3×
- Wooten v. WootenDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1964-02-14· cited 2×
- Wooten v. WootenCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama· 2007-05-08
- Wooten v. WootenDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1965-02-17
- Wooten v. WootenSupreme Court of Florida· 1965-06-15
- Wooten v. WootenDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1981-12-14
- Wooten v. WootenCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama· 1993-04-02
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.