Legal Opinion

Nash v. Tindall Corp.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided August 2, 2007No. 4284PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHORT, J.:

Mark Nash, Joel Kennedy, David Prosser, Denise Prosser, Jerry Stevens, and Joyce Million (collectively Plaintiffs) appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Tindall Corporation. Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in applying North Carolina’s statute of repose and holding as an alternative sustaining ground that Plaintiffs’ claims for willful and wanton conduct and gross negligence were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. We affirm. 1

FACTS

Tindall designed prestressed concreted double tees, some of which were used to support the pedestrian…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
  2. Cafe Associates, Ltd. v. GerngrossSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1991
  3. Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. MARINE CONTRACTING AND TOWING COMPANYSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1990
  4. Baxter v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
  5. Langley v. PierceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Albemarle Corp. v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2010
  2. Butler v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, D. South Carolina · 2010
  3. Skywaves I Corp. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2018
  4. Rogers v. LeeCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2015
  5. Arabi Gin Co. v. Plexus Cotton, Ltd. (In re Joseph Walker & Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · 2014

7 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