Legal Opinion
Jarrell v. Petoseed Co., Inc.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Decided April 27, 1998No. 2836PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HEARN, Judge:
Petoseed Company, Inc., appeals the trial judge’s ruling finding it liable for civil compensatory contempt. Petoseed argues the trial judge should have dismissed Danny Jarrell and Jimmy Wooten’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP. 1 We agree and reverse.
FACTS
Jarrell and Wooten, Respondents, initiated this lawsuit in 1994 against Petoseed for fraud and civil compensatory contempt. They allege they have suffered no less than $50,000 in damages based on Petoseed’s failure to produce a set of test results requested in a prior action. They learned about the results after…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. United Mine Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Shillitani v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Vuitton Et Fils S. A. v. Carousel Handbags, and Solomon Mizrahi, Joseph Mizrahi, and Maurice Mizrahi, Additional DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
- Brown v. LeveretteSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Wohlstein v. Aliezer, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2010
- Hooper v. RockwellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
- Matsuura v. Alston & BirdCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Floyd v. FloydCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2005
- Federal Trade Commission v. H.G. KuykendallCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.