Legal Opinion

Williamson v. Middleton

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided May 7, 2007No. 4243PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHearn, C.J.

Dan F. Williamson and Dan F. Williamson and Company (collectively, “Williamson”) appeal from the trial judge’s award of attorneys’ fees to Alfred C. Middleton. Williamson argues that Middleton is not entitled to attorneys’ fees, or in the alternative, that the criteria for awarding attorneys’ fees were not met in this case. We affirm.1

FACTS

Prior to this litigation, Middleton worked for a number of years as a commissioned salesman for Williamson. When Middleton quit working for Williamson, he was due a commission for having sold pallets to one of Williamson’s customers. Middleton and…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Staubes v. City of Folly BeachSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  2. Baron Data Systems, Inc. v. LoterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1989
  3. Gooding v. St. Francis Xavier HospitalSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
  4. Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
  5. Hanahan v. SimpsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. GTR RENTAL, LLC v. DalCantonDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2008
  2. Williamson & Co. v. MiddletonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
  3. A. Tebele & Sons v. Certain UnderwritersCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2026
  4. Portrait Homes v. Pennsylvania National MutualCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2023
  5. Williamson v. MiddletonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API