Legal Opinion

Runyon v. Wright

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided May 20, 1996No. 24433PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Burnett, Justice:

This appeal is from an order granting a motion for Rule 11 sanctions against appellant and his trial attorney. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant, who is an attorney licensed in South Carolina, was retained by respondents Karen and Darryl Wright for the purpose of perfecting a postconviction relief action for Darryl following Darryl’s conviction for drug related offenses. The Wrights also retained appellant to recover over $40,000 seized by authorities during or after Darryl’s arrest.

Over a period of time, the Wrights paid appellant approximately $9,000. Not satisfied with appellant’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Dunn v. DunnSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1989
  2. Link v. School District of Pickens CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1990
  3. Johnson v. DaileySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1995

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. Corey D.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  2. Russell v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
  3. Father v. South Carolina Department of Social ServicesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
  4. Ex Parte GregorySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2008
  5. In Re BeardCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2004

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API