# Dawkins v. Fields

> Supreme Court of South Carolina · April 7, 2003 · 354 S.C. 58

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9577977

## Case

- **Full name:** Lamar W. DAWKINS and George W. Chisholm, Respondents, v. Richard E. FIELDS; Louis O. Dore; Margaret W. Lesesne, Personal Representative of the Estate of Theodore Lesesne; Mildred Bobo, Personal Representative of the Estate of William Bobo; Herbert A. DeCosta, Jr., Juanita J. Washington; Richard N. Whitney; R.M. Stiney, Jr.; James Vickers; Agatha Cooper; Harold Lesesne; DIA-Dick Realty Company; And Seaside Development Corporation, Petitioners
- **Court:** Supreme Court of South Carolina
- **Decided:** April 7, 2003
- **Citations:** 354 S.C. 58; 580 S.E.2d 433; 2003 S.C. LEXIS 67
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pleicones
- **Judges:** Waller, Toal, Moore, Burnett, Pleicones
- **Cited by:** 125 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9577977

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that when the nonmoving party requests a delay in ruling on a summary judgment motion until further discovery may be completed, the party "must demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence and that the party is not merely …
- stating "the nonmoving party must demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence and that the party is 'not merely engaged in a fishing expedition'" (quoting Baughman v. Am. Tel. and Tel. Co., 306 S.C. 101, 112 , 410 S.E.2d 537, 544…
- finding the trial court properly declined to consider an expert affidavit that “offered some helpful, factual information” but mainly offered legal arguments concerning the reasons the trial court should deny summary judgment
- stating nonmoving party to summary judgment motion “must demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence and that the party is not merely engaged in a ‘fishing expedition.’”
- holding when a party claims summary judgment is premature because he has not been provided a full and fair opportunity to conduct discovery, he must advance a good reason why the time was insufficient under the facts of the case and demonstrate why further discovery would unco…

## Opinion text

Justice PLEICONES
dissenting:
I agree with the majority that at the summary judgment phase, a verified complaint is an acceptable substitute for an affidavit, as long as the pleading satisfies Rule 56(e), SCRCP. However, I respectfully disagree that there was no genuine issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment. In *72 my opinion, the factual averments of respondents’ verified complaint raised a genuine issue whether petitioners breached their fiduciary duty. The complaint alleged that the shares were issued for inadequate compensation. And that there was no legitimate business purpose for issuing the shares, as evidenced by the 100% dividend, returned on those shares only a few months later. I would therefore affirm the Court of Appeals.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9577977. Public record. Not legal advice.