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.
25 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Beekmangreen2 sentences2026See State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); State v. Beekman, 405 S.C. 225, 237 , 746 S.E.2d 483, 490 (Ct. App. 2013) ("The cumulative error doctrine provides relief to a party when a combination of errors, insignificant by themselves, has the effect of preventing the party from receiving a fair trial, and the cumulative effect of the errors affects the outcome of the tri 2026See State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); State v. Beekman, 405 S.C. 225, 237 , 746 S.E.2d 483, 490 (Ct. App. 2013) ("The cumulative error doctrine provides relief to a party when a combination of errors, insignificant by themselves, has the effect of preventing the party from receiving a fair trial, and the cumulative effect of the errors affects the outcome of the tri | 15 | 16 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2020See State v. Johnson, 334 S.C. 78, 93 , 512 S.E.2d 795, 803 (1999) ("Respondent must demonstrate more than error in order to qualify for reversal [pursuant to the cumulative error doctrine]. 2020See State v. Johnson, 334 S.C. 78, 93 , 512 S.E.2d 795, 803 (1999) ("Respondent must demonstrate more than error in order to qualify for reversal [pursuant to the cumulative error doctrine]. | 8 | 8 |
State v. Beekmangreen2 sentences2025An appellant must demonstrate more than error in order to qualify for reversal pursuant to the cumulative error doctrine; rather, he must show the errors adversely affected his right to a fair trial to qualify for reversal on this ground." (citation omitted)), aff'd, 415 S.C. 632 , 785 S.E.2d 202 (2016). 2025An appellant must demonstrate more than error in order to qualify for reversal pursuant to the cumulative error doctrine; rather, he must show the errors adversely affected his right to a fair trial to qualify for reversal on this ground." (citation omitted)), aff'd, 415 S.C. 632 , 785 S.E.2d 202 (2016). | 3 | 6 |
State v. Nicholsongreen2 sentences2014See State v. Johnson, 334 S.C. 78, 93 , 512 S.E.2d 795, 803 (1999) (explaining the cumulative error doctrine applies when “a combination of errors that are insignificant by themselves have the effect of preventing a party from receiving a fair trial”); State v. Nicholson, 366 S.C. 568, 581 , 623 S.E.2d 100, 106 (Ct.App.2005) (refusing to apply the doctrine because “the trial [court] did not err in any of the particulars alleged in this appeal”). 2014See State v. Johnson, 334 S.C. 78, 93 , 512 S.E.2d 795, 803 (1999) (explaining the cumulative error doctrine applies when “a combination of errors that are insignificant by themselves have the effect of preventing a party from receiving a fair trial”); State v. Nicholson, 366 S.C. 568, 581 , 623 S.E.2d 100, 106 (Ct.App.2005) (refusing to apply the doctrine because “the trial [court] did not err in any of the particulars alleged in this appeal”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. BANTANgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); State v. Beekman, 405 S.C. 225, 237 , 746 S.E.2d 483, 490 (Ct. App. 2013) ("The cumulative error doctrine provides relief to a party when a combination of errors, insignificant by themselves, has the effect of preventing the party from receiving a fair trial, and the cumulative effect of the errors affects the outcome of the tri 2026See State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); State v. Beekman, 405 S.C. 225, 237 , 746 S.E.2d 483, 490 (Ct. App. 2013) ("The cumulative error doctrine provides relief to a party when a combination of errors, insignificant by themselves, has the effect of preventing the party from receiving a fair trial, and the cumulative effect of the errors affects the outcome of the tri | 1 | 1 |
Staubes v. City of Folly Beachgreen2 sentences2024Thus, the cumulative error question was properly raised to and ruled on by the circuit court. 16 See Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412 , 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) ("It is well-settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review."). 2024Thus, the cumulative error question was properly raised to and ruled on by the circuit court. 16 See Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412 , 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) ("It is well-settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garnergreen2 sentences2017See Garner, 389 S.C. at 66 , 697 S.E.2d at 617 ("[I]n order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court.]"); id. ("[A]rguments raised for the first time on appeal are not preserved for [appellate] review[.]"); see also State v. Beekman, 405 S.C. 225 , 236– 37, 746 S.E.2d 483, 489 (Ct. App. 2013) (finding the cumulative error doctrine must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court for it to be preserved for appellate review). 2017See Garner, 389 S.C. at 66 , 697 S.E.2d at 617 ("[I]n order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court.]"); id. ("[A]rguments raised for the first time on appeal are not preserved for [appellate] review[.]"); see also State v. Beekman, 405 S.C. 225 , 236– 37, 746 S.E.2d 483, 489 (Ct. App. 2013) (finding the cumulative error doctrine must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court for it to be preserved for appellate review). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Byersgreen2 sentences2015As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when the cumulative effect of the errors was so prejudicial it deprived Agurs of a fair trial: State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 444 , 710 S.E.2d 55, 58 (2011) ("For an objection to be preserved for appellate review, the objection must be made at the time the evidence is presented and with sufficient specificity to inform the [trial court] of the point being urged by the objector." (citation omitted)); State v. Beekman, 405 S.C. 225, 236 , 746 S.E.2d 483, 489 (Ct. App. 2013) (concluding the cumulative error doctrine must be specif 2015As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when the cumulative effect of the errors was so prejudicial it deprived Agurs of a fair trial: State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 444 , 710 S.E.2d 55, 58 (2011) ("For an objection to be preserved for appellate review, the objection must be made at the time the evidence is presented and with sufficient specificity to inform the [trial court] of the point being urged by the objector." (citation omitted)); State v. Beekman, 405 S.C. 225, 236 , 746 S.E.2d 483, 489 (Ct. App. 2013) (concluding the cumulative error doctrine must be specif | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kornahrensgreen2 sentences2012See State v. Kornah rens, 290 S.C. 281 , 290, 350 S.E.2d 180 , 186 (1986) (holding where the appellate court found no errors, appellant’s assertion the trial judge should have granted a new trial because of the cumulative effect of the asserted trial errors had no merit); State v. Nicholson, 366 S.C. 568, 581 , 623 S.E.2d 100, 106 (Ct.App.2005) (holding, where appellant asserted the cumulative effect of the errors he alleged warranted a new trial, because the appellate court determined that the trial judge did not err in any of the particulars alleged in the appeal, the cumulative error doctri 2012See State v. Kornah rens, 290 S.C. 281 , 290, 350 S.E.2d 180 , 186 (1986) (holding where the appellate court found no errors, appellant’s assertion the trial judge should have granted a new trial because of the cumulative effect of the asserted trial errors had no merit); State v. Nicholson, 366 S.C. 568, 581 , 623 S.E.2d 100, 106 (Ct.App.2005) (holding, where appellant asserted the cumulative effect of the errors he alleged warranted a new trial, because the appellate court determined that the trial judge did not err in any of the particulars alleged in the appeal, the cumulative error doctri | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2010See Porter v. McCollum , 130 S.Ct. 447, 455-56 (2009) ("We do not require a defendant to show that counsel's deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome of [the trial], but rather that he establish a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in that outcome.") (internal quotations omitted); Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984) ("[A] court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2010See Porter v. McCollum , 130 S.Ct. 447, 455-56 (2009) ("We do not require a defendant to show that counsel's deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome of [the trial], but rather that he establish a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in that outcome.") (internal quotations omitted); Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984) ("[A] court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. . . . | 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. Durant
green
2 sentences2020State v. Durant, 430 S.C. 98 , 111 n.6, 844 S.E.2d 49 , 55 n.6 (2020) (noting the trial court did not commit any errors and thus, the cumulative error doctrine was not applicable, and moreover, the appellant did not properly preserve the argument because he did not argue that ground to the trial court); State v. Johnson, 334 S.C. 78, 93 , 512 S.E.2d 795, 803 (1999) (stating the cumulative error doctrine allows reversal when more than one error exists, and collectively, those errors prejudiced the defendant such that the outcome of the trial was affected). 2020State v. Durant, 430 S.C. 98 , 111 n.6, 844 S.E.2d 49 , 55 n.6 (2020) (noting the trial court did not commit any errors and thus, the cumulative error doctrine was not applicable, and moreover, the appellant did not properly preserve the argument because he did not argue that ground to the trial court); State v. Johnson, 334 S.C. 78, 93 , 512 S.E.2d 795, 803 (1999) (stating the cumulative error doctrine allows reversal when more than one error exists, and collectively, those errors prejudiced the defendant such that the outcome of the trial was affected). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.