Legal Opinion

Chastain v. Hiltabidle

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided January 22, 2009No. 4487PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WILLIAMS, J.:

In this action for negligence, Appellants argue the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent because Respondent’s motion for summary judgment was procedurally defective, or, in the alternative, because the trial court erred in holding a realtor does not have a legal duty to investigate latent defects in property or to advise his or her clients on matters outside the scope of his or her expertise. We affirm.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

C. Dan Joyner Company, Inc. (Realtor) provides residential real estate services throughout the Greenville area. Joan…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Wilder Corp. v. WilkeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  2. Bishop v. South Carolina Department of Mental HealthSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  3. Law v. South Carolina Department of CorrectionsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
  4. David v. McLeod Regional Medical CenterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
  5. Russell v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2003

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Hotel & Motel Holdings, LLC v. BJC Enterprises, LLCCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2015
  2. Fabian v. LindsaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2014
  3. Trask v. Beaufort CountyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2011
  4. Limehouse v. HulseyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2011
  5. Fisher v. HuckabeeCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2015

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