Legal Opinion

Brazell v. City of Camden

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided July 31, 1961No. 17813PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Taylor, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from an Order overruling defendant’s demurrer to the complaint, upon the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action in that it is not alleged that plaintiff personally was injured in his person or property, but, on the contrary, a person other than plaintiff Chis wife) allegedly sustained personal injuries by reason of defect in a street.

Two separate actions were instituted against the City of Camden, one by Bertha Brazell for damage for pain and suffering resulting from a fall allegedly caused by defect in a street in the City of Camden;…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Rice Hope Plantation v. South Carolina Public Service AuthoritySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1950
  2. Reeves v. City of EasleySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1932
  3. McKenzie v. CITY OF FLORENCESupreme Court of South Carolina · 1959
  4. Brooks v. One Motor Bus Carrying 1937-38 S. C. License V-1357, Motor No. 45590, Serial No. 40476Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1939
  5. Hollifield v. KellerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1961

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. McCall v. BatsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1985
  2. McCall ex rel. Andrews v. BatsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1985
  3. Harrison v. South Carolina Tax CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1973
  4. Watford v. South Carolina Highway DepartmentSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1979
  5. Belue v. City of SpartanburgSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1981

4 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