Legal Opinion

Bowen & Smoot v. Plumlee

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided May 11, 1992No. 23655PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellants, Bowen & Smoot and James T. McLaren, appeal the trial judge’s award of attorney’s fees to respondents, Glenn H. Plumlee, III, James H. Plumlee, and Mark Plumlee. We affirm.

This Court previously reversed the trial court’s denial of the respondent’s Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, motion filed in the appellants’ suit against the respondents, their client’s children, as third-party beneficiaries of child support, for attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of the parents’ divorce. See Bowen & Smoot v. Plumlee, 301 S.C. 262, 391 S.E. (2d) 558 (1990). We recognized that the denial of a Rule 12(b)(6)…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Glasscock v. GlasscockSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1991
  3. Sub-Zero Freezer Co. v. R.J. Clarkson Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
  4. Bowen & Smoot v. PlumleeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1990

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht ClubSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
  2. Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Lourie Brown and Monique BrownWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Lourie Brown and Monique BrownWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API