laid down rule in South Carolina

5 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1934–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Chick Springs Water Co. v. State Highway Departmentgreen · 1935 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1936–2025 2 sentences 2025See Chesterfield County v. State Highway Department of South Carolina, 181 S.C. 323, 329-30 , 187 S.E. 548, 550 (1936) ("In the case of Chick Springs Water Co. v. Highway Department, [ 178 S.C. 415 , 183 S.E. 27 (1935)], . . . this court laid down the principle that: 'No act of General Assembly is needed for suit against [the] state to recover just compensation for private property taken for public purpose (Const. art. 1, § 17).'"). 6 overruled by McCall, 285 S.C. at 248 n.11, 329 S.E.2d at 743 n.11 with regard to the abrogation of sovereign immunity and by Unisys, 346 S.C. at 167 , 551 S.E.2d 2025See Chesterfield County v. State Highway Department of South Carolina, 181 S.C. 323, 329-30 , 187 S.E. 548, 550 (1936) ("In the case of Chick Springs Water Co. v. Highway Department, [ 178 S.C. 415 , 183 S.E. 27 (1935)], . . . this court laid down the principle that: 'No act of General Assembly is needed for suit against [the] state to recover just compensation for private property taken for public purpose (Const. art. 1, § 17).'"). 6 overruled by McCall, 285 S.C. at 248 n.11, 329 S.E.2d at 743 n.11 with regard to the abrogation of sovereign immunity and by Unisys, 346 S.C. at 167 , 551 S.E.2d	1	2
Chesterfield County v. State Highway Department of South Carolinagreen sc · 1936 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025See Chesterfield County v. State Highway Department of South Carolina, 181 S.C. 323, 329-30 , 187 S.E. 548, 550 (1936) ("In the case of Chick Springs Water Co. v. Highway Department, [ 178 S.C. 415 , 183 S.E. 27 (1935)], . . . this court laid down the principle that: 'No act of General Assembly is needed for suit against [the] state to recover just compensation for private property taken for public purpose (Const. art. 1, § 17).'"). 6 overruled by McCall, 285 S.C. at 248 n.11, 329 S.E.2d at 743 n.11 with regard to the abrogation of sovereign immunity and by Unisys, 346 S.C. at 167 , 551 S.E.2d 2025See Chesterfield County v. State Highway Department of South Carolina, 181 S.C. 323, 329-30 , 187 S.E. 548, 550 (1936) ("In the case of Chick Springs Water Co. v. Highway Department, [ 178 S.C. 415 , 183 S.E. 27 (1935)], . . . this court laid down the principle that: 'No act of General Assembly is needed for suit against [the] state to recover just compensation for private property taken for public purpose (Const. art. 1, § 17).'"). 6 overruled by McCall, 285 S.C. at 248 n.11, 329 S.E.2d at 743 n.11 with regard to the abrogation of sovereign immunity and by Unisys, 346 S.C. at 167 , 551 S.E.2d	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Aughtry green sc · 1897 2 sentences 1944State v. Langford, 74 S. C., 460, 55 S. E., 120 ; State v. Aughtry, 49 S. C., 285, 26 S. E., 619 , 27 S. E., 199 ; State v. Hudson, 66 S. C., 394, 44 S. E., 968 , 97 Am. 1940State v. Langford, 74 S. C., 460, 55 S. E., 120 ; State v. Aughtry, 49 S. C., 285, 26 S. E., 619 , 27 S. E., 199 ; State v. Hudson, 66 S. C., 394, 44 S. E., 968 , 97 Am.	2	1940–1944
State v. Hudson neutral · 1903 2 sentences 1944State v. Langford, 74 S. C., 460, 55 S. E., 120 ; State v. Aughtry, 49 S. C., 285, 26 S. E., 619 , 27 S. E., 199 ; State v. Hudson, 66 S. C., 394, 44 S. E., 968 , 97 Am. 1940State v. Langford, 74 S. C., 460, 55 S. E., 120 ; State v. Aughtry, 49 S. C., 285, 26 S. E., 619 , 27 S. E., 199 ; State v. Hudson, 66 S. C., 394, 44 S. E., 968 , 97 Am.	2	1940–1944
State v. Kimbrell green sc · 1939 2 sentences 1944In the recent case of State v. Kimbrell, 191 S. C., 238, 4 S. E. (2d), 121, 122 , this Court laid down the rule of law where circumstantial evidence is relied upon for conviction in the language following: “Where it is undertaken by the prosecution in a criminal case to prove the guilt of the accused by circumstantial evidence, not only must the circumstances be proven, but they must point conclusively — that is, to a moral certainty — to the guilt of the accused; they must be wholly and in every particular perfectly consistent with each other, 149 and they must further be absolutely inconsis 1940In the recent case of State v. Kimbrell, 191 S. C., 238, 4 S. E. (2d), 121, 122 , this Court laid down the rule of law where circumstantial evidence is relied upon- for a conviction, in the language following: 415 “Where it is undertaken by the prosecution in a criminal case to prove the guilt of the accused by circumstantial evidence, not only must the circumstances be proven, but they must point conclusively — that is, to a moral certainty — to the guilt of the accused; they must be wholly and in every particular perfectly consistent with each other, and they must further be absolutely inco	2	1940–1944
State v. Langford green sc · 1906 2 sentences 1944State v. Langford, 74 S. C., 460, 55 S. E., 120 ; State v. Aughtry, 49 S. C., 285, 26 S. E., 619 , 27 S. E., 199 ; State v. Hudson, 66 S. C., 394, 44 S. E., 968 , 97 Am. 1940State v. Langford, 74 S. C., 460, 55 S. E., 120 ; State v. Aughtry, 49 S. C., 285, 26 S. E., 619 , 27 S. E., 199 ; State v. Hudson, 66 S. C., 394, 44 S. E., 968 , 97 Am.	2	1940–1944
McCall v. Batson red sc · 1985 2 sentences 2025See Chesterfield County v. State Highway Department of South Carolina, 181 S.C. 323, 329-30 , 187 S.E. 548, 550 (1936) ("In the case of Chick Springs Water Co. v. Highway Department, [ 178 S.C. 415 , 183 S.E. 27 (1935)], . . . this court laid down the principle that: 'No act of General Assembly is needed for suit against [the] state to recover just compensation for private property taken for public purpose (Const. art. 1, § 17).'"). 6 overruled by McCall, 285 S.C. at 248 n.11, 329 S.E.2d at 743 n.11 with regard to the abrogation of sovereign immunity and by Unisys, 346 S.C. at 167 , 551 S.E.2d 2025See Chesterfield County v. State Highway Department of South Carolina, 181 S.C. 323, 329-30 , 187 S.E. 548, 550 (1936) ("In the case of Chick Springs Water Co. v. Highway Department, [ 178 S.C. 415 , 183 S.E. 27 (1935)], . . . this court laid down the principle that: 'No act of General Assembly is needed for suit against [the] state to recover just compensation for private property taken for public purpose (Const. art. 1, § 17).'"). 6 overruled by McCall, 285 S.C. at 248 n.11, 329 S.E.2d at 743 n.11 with regard to the abrogation of sovereign immunity and by Unisys, 346 S.C. at 167 , 551 S.E.2d	1	2025–2025
Unisys Corp. v. South Carolina Budget & Control Board Division of General Services Information Technology Management Office green sc · 2001 1 sentence 2025See Chesterfield County v. State Highway Department of South Carolina, 181 S.C. 323, 329-30 , 187 S.E. 548, 550 (1936) ("In the case of Chick Springs Water Co. v. Highway Department, [ 178 S.C. 415 , 183 S.E. 27 (1935)], . . . this court laid down the principle that: 'No act of General Assembly is needed for suit against [the] state to recover just compensation for private property taken for public purpose (Const. art. 1, § 17).'"). 6 overruled by McCall, 285 S.C. at 248 n.11, 329 S.E.2d at 743 n.11 with regard to the abrogation of sovereign immunity and by Unisys, 346 S.C. at 167 , 551 S.E.2d	1	2025–2025
In Re: Willcox neutral sc · 1931 1 sentence 1934In the case of In re Willcox (Ellis’ Estate v. Brown), 162 S. C., 133, 160 S. E., 260 , this Court laid down the rule that a trustee must follow the provisions of the statute and procure the written approval of the Probate Judge for the deposit of the trust funds in a bank, or else in case of loss by failure of the bank, the trustee and his surety would be liable.	1	1934–1934

Where else courts name it

OK 65 (1898–1980) NY 41 (1863–2006) IL 26 (1895–1982) WA 20 (1898–1970) TX 20 (1915–1982) CA 18 (1900–2000) LA 16 (1905–1985) KY 15 (1859–1980) WV 14 (1881–1994) FL 13 (1918–2004) AR 11 (1905–1963) NC 11 (1890–1929) MN 11 (1881–1964) GA 10 (1904–1967) TN 10 (1933–2006) IA 10 (1916–1992) ID 9 (1893–1958) AL 8 (1857–2004) MI 7 (1873–1935) NJ 7 (1940–1994) MT 7 (1904–1958) ND 7 (1909–1950) OR 7 (1912–1963) AZ 7 (1948–1969) NE 6 (1880–1953) MS 6 (1918–1964) PA 5 (1931–1980) IN 5 (1876–1992) KS 5 (1884–1965) SC 5 (1934–2025) OH 4 (1894–1941) VA 4 (1876–1951) SD 4 (1904–1957) WI 4 (1861–1930) MD 3 (1939–1979) ME 3 (1949–1965) CO 3 (1918–1924) AK 2 (1960–1969) VT 2 (1861–1887) MO 2 (1929–1980) CT 2 (1979–1979) DE 2 (1897–1948) DC 2 (1914–1958) HI 2 (1971–1976)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check