Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1987

Toussaint v. Ham Ex Rel. Bailey Memorial Hospital

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided May 26, 1987 · Per Curiam

357 S.E.2d 8; 292 S.C. 415; 1987 S.C. LEXIS 278 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

34 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Spence v. Spence Ex Rel. Spence (S.C. 2006)
Dye v. Gainey (S.C. Ct. App. 1995)
Slack v. James (S.C. 2005)
Overcash v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (S.C. 2005)
Williams v. Condon (S.C. Ct. App. 2001)
Cowart v. Poore (S.C. Ct. App. 1999)
Plyler v. Burns (S.C. 2007)
Douan v. Charleston County Council (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)
Charleston County School District v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc. (S.C. Ct. App. 2001)
Josh Hawkins v. American Airlines (S.C. Ct. App. 2024)
City of Charleston v. City of North Charleston (S.C. Ct. App. 2023)
Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Barbara A. Gibbs (S.C. Ct. App. 2022)
Arata v. Village West Owner's Association (S.C. Ct. App. 2011)
Ashley River Properties I, LLC v. Ashley River Properties II, LLC (S.C. Ct. App. 2007)
Doe v. Marion (S.C. 2007)
Karoly v. Sumner (S.C. Ct. App. 2007)
Amerson v. Tolson (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)
Pinder v. Washington (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)
Bergstrom v. Palmetto Health Alliance (S.C. 2004)
Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Marion (S.C. Ct. App. 2004)
Canzater v. City of Columbia (S.C. Ct. App. 2004)
Nelson Ex Rel. Nelson v. QHG of South Carolina, Inc. (S.C. Ct. App. 2003)
Chewning v. Ford Motor Co. (S.C. 2003)
Flateau v. Harrelson (S.C. Ct. App. 2003)
Gentry v. Yonce (S.C. 1999)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The circuit court granted respondents’ 12(b)(6) 1 motion *416 and dismissed appellants’ challenge to a bond referendum held in Laurens County: We reverse and remand.

A ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss must be based solely upon the allegations set forth on the face of the complaint and the motion cannot be sustained if facts alleged and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom would entitle the plaintiff to any relief on any theory of the case. Brown v. Leverette, 291 S. C. 364, 353 S. E. (2d) 697 (1987). See also 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 (1969) (The question is whether in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief. The complaint should not be dismissed merely because the court doubts that plaintiff will prevail in the action.).

We cannot agree with the lower court’s view that appellants’ amended complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action.

The circuit court’s order granting the Rule 12(b)(6) motion is reversed and the case is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.