Legal Opinion

Smith v. Commissioners of Public Works

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided February 7, 1994No. 2134PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Cureton, Judge:

This is a declaratory judgment action involving the interpretation of a written agreement. In the action, respondents, Harold E. Smith, Carl F. Smith and Jerry R. Smith (Smiths), ask the court to declare that they have an easement to cross the land of appellant, Commissioners of Public Works of the City of Charleston (CPW). The master granted the relief sought by the Smiths and CPW appeals. We affirm as modified and remand.

The Smiths and CPW are adjacent land owners in Berkeley County. They are subsequent grantees of Benjamin R. Kittredge who originally received the easement in…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of GreenvilleSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1976
  2. Carolina Land Company, Inc. v. BlandSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1975
  3. Sandy Island Corp. v. RagsdaleSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1965
  4. Hill v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1943
  5. Brasington v. WilliamsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Tupper v. Dorchester CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
  2. Queen's Grant II Horizontal Property Regime v. Greenwood Development Corp.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2006
  3. Eldridge v. City of GreenwoodCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1998
  4. Windham v. RiddleSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
  5. Plott v. Justin EnterprisesCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007

20 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