Legal Opinion
Perry v. Heirs at Law of Gadsden
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Decided November 3, 2003No. 3691PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Per curiam
More than four years after the master-in-equity ordered the partition of the 110.54-acre tract of land at the heart of this litigation, Gadsden filed a Rule 60(b), SCRCP motion to set aside the partition order, alleging fraud on the court and inequitable prospective application of the order. The trial court denied the motion. Gadsden appeals. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 13, 1990, Alice C.G. Perry, Emily Mitchell, Eliza Tremble, and Doris Green (“Respondents”) brought an action against their uncle Cecil J. Gadsden, Jr. and the heirs of their grandfather Cecil J. Gadsden,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Binkley v. Rabon Creek Watershed Conservation DistrictCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2001
- Chewning v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
- Coleman Ex Rel. Coleman v. DunlapSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
- Perry v. Heirs at Law & Distributees of GadsdenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1993
- Jackson v. Moultrie Production Credit Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jamison v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007
- Ray v. RaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
- Ray v. RaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007