Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 South Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2017 0 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Harvey v. South Carolina Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2017Jordan Co., the Court replaced this test with a rational relationship test. 338 S.C. at 477-78, 527 S.E.2d at 765 (“Accordingly, we overrule our cases which apply the traditional approach, and adopt this standard for reviewing all substantive due process challenges to state statutes: ‘Whether it bears a reasonable relationship to any legitimate interest of government.’ ” (footnote omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Harbit v. City of Charlestongreen2 sentences2011Further, we must consider the Ordinance in the context of the surrounding area, including the fact that the City is home to several colleges and universities. 8 With that in mind, we find the Ordinance is a valid exercise of the City’s broad police power and that there is a rational relationship between the City’s decision to limit to three the number of unrelated individuals who may live together as a single housekeeping unit and the legitimate governmental interests of controlling the undesirable qualities associated with “mass student congestion.” Cf. Harbit, 382 S.C. at 395 , 675 S.E.2d at 2011Further, we must consider the Ordinance in the context of the surrounding area, including the fact that the City is home to several colleges and universities. 8 With that in mind, we find the Ordinance is a valid exercise of the City’s broad police power and that there is a rational relationship between the City’s decision to limit to three the number of unrelated individuals who may live together as a single housekeeping unit and the legitimate governmental interests of controlling the undesirable qualities associated with “mass student congestion.” Cf. Harbit, 382 S.C. at 395 , 675 S.E.2d at | 1 | 1 |
German Evangelical Lutheran Church v. City of Charlestongreen2 sentences2010German Evangelical Lutheran Church of Charleston v. City of Charleston, 352 S.C. 600, 608 , 576 S.E.2d 150, 154 (2003); see also In re Marriage of Vrban, 293 N.W.2d 198, 201 (Iowa 1980) (applying the rational relationship test as neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right are implicated); In re Marriage of Kohring, 999 S.W.2d 228, 232-33 (Mo.1999) (finding no equal protection violation because there was no involvement of a suspect class, no infringement of a fundamental right, and the existence of a rational relationship to legitimate state interest); Childers v. Childers, 89 Wash.2d 592 2010German Evangelical Lutheran Church of Charleston v. City of Charleston, 352 S.C. 600, 608 , 576 S.E.2d 150, 154 (2003); see also In re Marriage of Vrban, 293 N.W.2d 198, 201 (Iowa 1980) (applying the rational relationship test as neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right are implicated); In re Marriage of Kohring, 999 S.W.2d 228, 232-33 (Mo.1999) (finding no equal protection violation because there was no involvement of a suspect class, no infringement of a fundamental right, and the existence of a rational relationship to legitimate state interest); Childers v. Childers, 89 Wash.2d 592 | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Kohringgreen2 sentences2010German Evangelical Lutheran Church of Charleston v. City of Charleston, 352 S.C. 600, 608 , 576 S.E.2d 150, 154 (2003); see also In re Marriage of Vrban, 293 N.W.2d 198, 201 (Iowa 1980) (applying the rational relationship test as neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right are implicated); In re Marriage of Kohring, 999 S.W.2d 228, 232-33 (Mo.1999) (finding no equal protection violation because there was no involvement of a suspect class, no infringement of a fundamental right, and the existence of a rational relationship to legitimate state interest); Childers v. Childers, 89 Wash.2d 592 2010German Evangelical Lutheran Church of Charleston v. City of Charleston, 352 S.C. 600, 608 , 576 S.E.2d 150, 154 (2003); see also In re Marriage of Vrban, 293 N.W.2d 198, 201 (Iowa 1980) (applying the rational relationship test as neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right are implicated); In re Marriage of Kohring, 999 S.W.2d 228, 232-33 (Mo.1999) (finding no equal protection violation because there was no involvement of a suspect class, no infringement of a fundamental right, and the existence of a rational relationship to legitimate state interest); Childers v. Childers, 89 Wash.2d 592 | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Vrbangreen2 sentences2010German Evangelical Lutheran Church of Charleston v. City of Charleston, 352 S.C. 600, 608 , 576 S.E.2d 150, 154 (2003); see also In re Marriage of Vrban, 293 N.W.2d 198, 201 (Iowa 1980) (applying the rational relationship test as neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right are implicated); In re Marriage of Kohring, 999 S.W.2d 228, 232-33 (Mo.1999) (finding no equal protection violation because there was no involvement of a suspect class, no infringement of a fundamental right, and the existence of a rational relationship to legitimate state interest); Childers v. Childers, 89 Wash.2d 592 2010German Evangelical Lutheran Church of Charleston v. City of Charleston, 352 S.C. 600, 608 , 576 S.E.2d 150, 154 (2003); see also In re Marriage of Vrban, 293 N.W.2d 198, 201 (Iowa 1980) (applying the rational relationship test as neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right are implicated); In re Marriage of Kohring, 999 S.W.2d 228, 232-33 (Mo.1999) (finding no equal protection violation because there was no involvement of a suspect class, no infringement of a fundamental right, and the existence of a rational relationship to legitimate state interest); Childers v. Childers, 89 Wash.2d 592 | 1 | 1 |
Childers v. Childersgreen2 sentences2010German Evangelical Lutheran Church of Charleston v. City of Charleston, 352 S.C. 600, 608 , 576 S.E.2d 150, 154 (2003); see also In re Marriage of Vrban, 293 N.W.2d 198, 201 (Iowa 1980) (applying the rational relationship test as neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right are implicated); In re Marriage of Kohring, 999 S.W.2d 228, 232-33 (Mo.1999) (finding no equal protection violation because there was no involvement of a suspect class, no infringement of a fundamental right, and the existence of a rational relationship to legitimate state interest); Childers v. Childers, 89 Wash.2d 592 2010German Evangelical Lutheran Church of Charleston v. City of Charleston, 352 S.C. 600, 608 , 576 S.E.2d 150, 154 (2003); see also In re Marriage of Vrban, 293 N.W.2d 198, 201 (Iowa 1980) (applying the rational relationship test as neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right are implicated); In re Marriage of Kohring, 999 S.W.2d 228, 232-33 (Mo.1999) (finding no equal protection violation because there was no involvement of a suspect class, no infringement of a fundamental right, and the existence of a rational relationship to legitimate state interest); Childers v. Childers, 89 Wash.2d 592 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jenkins
green
2 sentences1997As we noted in our interpretation of section 20-7-50, supra, the same argument could be made about the statute as applied to a child who has already been born. [7] The Court applied a rational relationship test, the least rigorous form of scrutiny. [1] After this case arose, the statute was amended to change the classification from misdemeanor to felony. 1993 Act No. 184. § 55 (effective January 1, 1994). [2] Examples include condoning delinquency, using excessive corporal punishment, committing sexual offenses against the child, and depriving her of adequate food, clothing, shelter or educati 1997As we noted in our interpretation of section 20-7-50, supra, the same argument could be made about the statute as applied to a child who has already been born. [7] The Court applied a rational relationship test, the least rigorous form of scrutiny. [1] After this case arose, the statute was amended to change the classification from misdemeanor to felony. 1993 Act No. 184. § 55 (effective January 1, 1994). [2] Examples include condoning delinquency, using excessive corporal punishment, committing sexual offenses against the child, and depriving her of adequate food, clothing, shelter or educati | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia
green
2 sentences1978Massachusetts Board of Retirement, et al. v. Murgia , 427 U.S. 307 , 96 S.Ct. 2562, 2567 , 49 L.Ed. (2d) 520 (1976), note 5. [4] The rational relationship test, rather than "strict scrutiny" is applied to claims of age-based discrimination. 1978Massachusetts Board of Retirement, et al. v. Murgia , 427 U.S. 307 , 96 S.Ct. 2562, 2567 , 49 L.Ed. (2d) 520 (1976), note 5. [4] The rational relationship test, rather than "strict scrutiny" is applied to claims of age-based discrimination. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.