Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cannarella v. Cannarella

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided December 30, 1980No. 21355Published

1DissentHarwell, Justice

(dissenting) :

The allowance of pendente lite alimony is a matter largely left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Nienow v. Nienow, 245 S. C. 542, 141 S. E. (2d) 648 (1965). This Court, nonetheless, in an appeal from an order of the family court has jurisdiction to review the entire record to determine the facts in accord with its view of the preponderance of the evidence. This broad scope of review, however, does not require us to disregard the findings of the lower court. Spires v. Higgins, 271 S. C. 530, 248 S. E. (2d) 488 (1978). Having thoroughly reviewed the record and briefs *519of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Spires v. HigginsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
  2. Nienow v. NienowSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API