Legal Opinion

Warner v. Rudnick

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided March 2, 1984No. 0110PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Cureton, Judge:

This is a libel action. In proceedings below, the appellant, Harold Rudnick, demurred to the complaint of the respondent, Carrol Warner, on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The trial court overruled the demurrer and Rudnick appeals. We reverse.

In passing upon a demurrer, this Court is limited to a consideration of the pleadings under attack. Costas v. Florence Printing Company, 237 S. C. 655, 118 S. E. (2d) 696 (1961). All of the factual allegations of the complaint that are properly pleaded are, for the purpose of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Capps v. WattsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
  2. Black v. State Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1913
  3. McGregor v. State Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1920
  4. Costas v. Florence Printing Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1961
  5. Rutledge v. Junior Order of United American MechanicsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1937

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Multimedia, Inc. v. Greenville Airport CommissionCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1986
  2. Holtzscheiter v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  3. Holtzscheiter v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API