Tilley v. Pacesetter Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
47 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States Trust Company of New York v. New Jersey · Steinke v. SC DEPT. OF LABOR, LICENSING · Steinke v. South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation · Nelson v. Concrete Supply Company · Future Group, II v. Nationsbank
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Buyers argue they are entitled to prejudgment interest from October 27, 1995, the date the action was filed, to April 3, 1997, the date of entry of summary judgment. We disagree. This Court requires parties to plead for pre-judgment interest in order for it to be recovered. Hopkins v. Hopkins, 343 S.C. 301 , 540 S.E.2d 454 (2000); Calhoun v. Calhoun, 339 S.C. 96 , 529 S.E.2d 14 (2000). If no request for prejudgment interest is made in the pleadings, it cannot be recovered on appeal. Id. If pre-judgment interest is pled for in the complaint, it “is allowed on obligations to pay money from the time the payment is demandable, either by agreement of the parties or by operation of law, if the sum is certain or capable of being reduced to certainty.” Future Group, II v. Nationsbauk, 324 S.C. 89, 101 , 478 S.E.2d 45, 50 (1996). In this case, the Buyers did not plead for pre-judgment interest in their original complaint of October 27, 1995, or in their amended complaint of January 23, 1996. Under the rule established in Calhoun and Hopkins , Buyers cannot now recover pre-judgment interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In such circumstances, [the appellate c]ourt simply lacks the authority to look for or impose another meaning and may not resort to subtle or forced construction in an attempt to limit or expand a statute's scope.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Oulla v. Velazques“When the language of a statute is plain, unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the application of standard rules of statutory interpretation is unwarranted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Oulla v. Velazques
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.