Legal Opinion

Gastineau v. Murphy

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided June 10, 1996No. 2517PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Anderson, Judge:

This is an action under the South Carolina Whistleblower Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 8-27-10 et seq. (Supp. 1991), in which the *172jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, James Gastineau, in the amount of $375,000. The Whistleblower Act became effective March 14, 1988, and was substantially revised effective June 21, 1993. Because Gastineau was terminated in 1990, the original statute applies. The Defendant, Beaufort County Mental Retardation Board, appeals the denial of its trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial. We affirm.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Town…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of GreenvilleSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1976
  2. Crane v. Lessee of MorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
  3. Cock-N-Bull Steak House, Inc. v. Generali InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
  4. Adams v. GJ Creel and Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1995
  5. Rush v. BlanchardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Vinson v. HartleyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1996
  2. Gastineau v. MurphySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  3. Gastineau v. MurphySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  4. Singletary v. ShulerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2021
  5. Singletary v. ShulerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API