Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Wilson
823 S.E.2d 697, 425 S.C. 574
Court of Appeals of South Carolina·Decided January 9, 2019·No. Appellate Case No. 2016-001214; Opinion No. 5613·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
II. REMAINING ISSUES
Based on our finding Quicken did not violate the attorney preference statute, we decline to address its remaining arguments.
**582See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.,
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the order on appeal is
REVERSED.
HUFF and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Wilson, 823 S.E.2d 697, 425 S.C. 574 (S.C. Ct. App. 2019).
823 S.E.2d 697 (Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Wilson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Richard W. Meier v. Mary J. Burnsed
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2022