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.
22 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1937–2025 5 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. Washingtongreen2 sentences2024See State v. Huckabee, 388 S.C. 232, 241 , 694 S.E.2d 781, 785 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[T]he decision to sequester a witness is within the sound discretion of the [trial] court."); State v. Moorer, 439 S.C. 525 , 548, 888 S.E.2d 725 , 737 (Ct. App. 2023), reh'g denied (July 24, 2023) ("The purpose of the exclusion rule is . . . to prevent the possibility of one witness shaping his testimony to match that given by other witnesses at the trial; and if a witness violates the order he may be disciplined by the court." (quoting State v. Washington, 424 S.C. 374, 409 , 818 S.E.2d 459, 477 (Ct. App. 2018), 2024See State v. Huckabee, 388 S.C. 232, 241 , 694 S.E.2d 781, 785 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[T]he decision to sequester a witness is within the sound discretion of the [trial] court."); State v. Moorer, 439 S.C. 525 , 548, 888 S.E.2d 725 , 737 (Ct. App. 2023), reh'g denied (July 24, 2023) ("The purpose of the exclusion rule is . . . to prevent the possibility of one witness shaping his testimony to match that given by other witnesses at the trial; and if a witness violates the order he may be disciplined by the court." (quoting State v. Washington, 424 S.C. 374, 409 , 818 S.E.2d 459, 477 (Ct. App. 2018), | 3 | 3 |
Holmes v. South Carolinagreen2 sentences2013However, it is also clear that “the Constitution ... prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends they are asserted to promote.... ” Id. 2008However, “[w]hile the Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote, well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.” Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 ; see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (The Constitution grants trial judges ruling on th | 1 | 4 |
Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.green1 sentence2024Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts."); 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F) ("The term does not include . . . any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity (i) is incidental to a bona fide fiduciary obligation or a bona fide escrow arrangement; (ii) concerns a de | 1 | 1 |
State v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Huckabee, 388 S.C. 232, 241 , 694 S.E.2d 781, 785 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[T]he decision to sequester a witness is within the sound discretion of the [trial] court."); State v. Moorer, 439 S.C. 525 , 548, 888 S.E.2d 725 , 737 (Ct. App. 2023), reh'g denied (July 24, 2023) ("The purpose of the exclusion rule is . . . to prevent the possibility of one witness shaping his testimony to match that given by other witnesses at the trial; and if a witness violates the order he may be disciplined by the court." (quoting State v. Washington, 424 S.C. 374, 409 , 818 S.E.2d 459, 477 (Ct. App. 2018), 2024See State v. Huckabee, 388 S.C. 232, 241 , 694 S.E.2d 781, 785 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[T]he decision to sequester a witness is within the sound discretion of the [trial] court."); State v. Moorer, 439 S.C. 525 , 548, 888 S.E.2d 725 , 737 (Ct. App. 2023), reh'g denied (July 24, 2023) ("The purpose of the exclusion rule is . . . to prevent the possibility of one witness shaping his testimony to match that given by other witnesses at the trial; and if a witness violates the order he may be disciplined by the court." (quoting State v. Washington, 424 S.C. 374, 409 , 818 S.E.2d 459, 477 (Ct. App. 2018), | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huckabeegreen2 sentences2024See State v. Huckabee, 388 S.C. 232, 241 , 694 S.E.2d 781, 785 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[T]he decision to sequester a witness is within the sound discretion of the [trial] court."); State v. Moorer, 439 S.C. 525 , 548, 888 S.E.2d 725 , 737 (Ct. App. 2023), reh'g denied (July 24, 2023) ("The purpose of the exclusion rule is . . . to prevent the possibility of one witness shaping his testimony to match that given by other witnesses at the trial; and if a witness violates the order he may be disciplined by the court." (quoting State v. Washington, 424 S.C. 374, 409 , 818 S.E.2d 459, 477 (Ct. App. 2018), 2024See State v. Huckabee, 388 S.C. 232, 241 , 694 S.E.2d 781, 785 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[T]he decision to sequester a witness is within the sound discretion of the [trial] court."); State v. Moorer, 439 S.C. 525 , 548, 888 S.E.2d 725 , 737 (Ct. App. 2023), reh'g denied (July 24, 2023) ("The purpose of the exclusion rule is . . . to prevent the possibility of one witness shaping his testimony to match that given by other witnesses at the trial; and if a witness violates the order he may be disciplined by the court." (quoting State v. Washington, 424 S.C. 374, 409 , 818 S.E.2d 459, 477 (Ct. App. 2018), | 1 | 1 |
Carolina Production Maintenance, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.green2 sentences2013Co., 310 S.C. 32 , 37- 38, 425 S.E.2d 39, 42-43 (Ct. App. 1992) (holding the insurance agent was not negligent in obtaining a business liability policy for the insured company that contained a "care, custody, or control" exclusion because the exclusion was standard, so the agent could not have obtained policy without it, and the agent did not assume any special duty to advise the insured). 3. 2013Co., 310 S.C. 32 , 37- 38, 425 S.E.2d 39, 42-43 (Ct. App. 1992) (holding the insurance agent was not negligent in obtaining a business liability policy for the insured company that contained a "care, custody, or control" exclusion because the exclusion was standard, so the agent could not have obtained policy without it, and the agent did not assume any special duty to advise the insured). 3. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Clarence Gene Leggett, Alias Clarence Eugene Leggett Alias Gene Leggettgreen1 sentence2010The question of the exclusion of the testimony of the offending witness, however, depends upon the particular circumstances and lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” U.S. v. Leggett, 326 F.2d 613, 613-14 (4th Cir.1964). | 1 | 1 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen2 sentences2008However, “[w]hile the Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote, well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.” Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 ; see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (The Constitution grants trial judges ruling on th 2008However, “[w]hile the Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote, well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.” Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 ; see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (The Constitution grants trial judges ruling on th | 1 | 1 |
Marshall v. Lonbergergreen2 sentences2008However, “[w]hile the Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote, well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.” Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 ; see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (The Constitution grants trial judges ruling on th 2008However, “[w]hile the Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote, well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.” Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 ; see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (The Constitution grants trial judges ruling on th | 1 | 1 |
Crane v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2008However, “[w]hile the Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote, well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.” Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 ; see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (The Constitution grants trial judges ruling on th 2008However, “[w]hile the Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote, well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.” Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 ; see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (The Constitution grants trial judges ruling on th | 1 | 1 |
Vaught v. A.O. Hardee & Sons, Inc.green2 sentences2007Hardee & Sons, Inc., 366 S.C. 475, 480 , 623 S.E.2d 373, 375 (2005). 2007Hardee & Sons, Inc., 366 S.C. 475, 480 , 623 S.E.2d 373, 375 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
City of Manchester v. General Reinsurance Corp.green1 sentence1991See City of Manchester v. General Reinsurance Carp., 127 N.H. 806 , 508 A. (2d) 1063 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Life Casualty Insurance Co.green1 sentence1961Rep. 115 . ‘Whatever be the nature of the violation of law urged by the insurance company, ’ as avoiding the policy, it seems to be clear that a relation must exist between the violation of law and the death, to make good the defense; that the death must have been caused by the violation of law to exempt the company from liability.’ ” Thereafter in Young v. Life & Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee, 204 S. C. 386, 29 S. E. (2d) 482, 484, 485 , this Court had under consideration an exclusion clause relating to the insured being “enrolled” in military service and used the following language | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nevada v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2017Nevada v. Jackson, 569 U.S. 505 , 133 S.Ct. 1990 , 1992, 186 L.Ed.2d 62 (2013). 2017Nevada v. Jackson, 569 U.S. 505 , 133 S.Ct. 1990 , 1992, 186 L.Ed.2d 62 (2013). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Nevada v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2017Nevada v. Jackson, 569 U.S. 505 , 133 S.Ct. 1990 , 1992, 186 L.Ed.2d 62 (2013). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Spencer v. Texas
green
2 sentences2008However, “[w]hile the Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote, well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.” Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 ; see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (The Constitution grants trial judges ruling on th 2008However, “[w]hile the Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote, well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.” Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 ; see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (The Constitution grants trial judges ruling on th | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Barnette Ex Rel. Barnette v. Adams Bros. Logging
green
2 sentences2008Id. at 592 , 586 S.E.2d at 574 . 2008Id. at 592 , 586 S.E.2d at 574 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gray v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences1994The Petitioner then points to Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 , 107 S.Ct. 2045 , 95 L.Ed. (2d) 622 (1987) (inappropriate exclusion of a potential juror can never be harmless error) for the proposition that the exclusion mandates reversal. 1994The Petitioner then points to Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 , 107 S.Ct. 2045 , 95 L.Ed. (2d) 622 (1987) (inappropriate exclusion of a potential juror can never be harmless error) for the proposition that the exclusion mandates reversal. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Pitts v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co.
green
1 sentence1966In all candor, we must agree that the decision of this court in Pitts v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co., 222 S. C. 133, 72 S. E. (2d) 174 , tends to support appellants’ view that the policy is ambiguous as to the exclusion of the claim for the expense of funeral services. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich
green
2 sentences1962Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. 1962Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Bridgewater v. General Exchange Insurance
green
2 sentences1955Corp., 234 Mo. App. 335 , 131 S. W. (2d) 220 , and Zancker v. Northern Ins. 1955Corp., 234 Mo. App. 335 , 131 S. W. (2d) 220 , and Zancker v. Northern Ins. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Gillis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1942Co., 175 S. C., 223, 179 S. E., 62 , several rules were introduced in evidence by the plaintiff, which referred to the duty of the engineer in movement of trains. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Roadbuilders' Hauling Co. v. Constitution Indemnity Co.
green
1 sentence1938We think we should refer to the cases of Roadbuilders’ Hauling Co. v. Constitution Indemnity Co., 165 S. C., 363, 163 S. E., 837 , and Adderton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 182 S. C., 465, 189 S. E., 736 , relied upon by respondent. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Adderton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
neutral
1 sentence1938We think we should refer to the cases of Roadbuilders’ Hauling Co. v. Constitution Indemnity Co., 165 S. C., 363, 163 S. E., 837 , and Adderton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 182 S. C., 465, 189 S. E., 736 , relied upon by respondent. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Phoenix Indemnity Co. v. Barrett
neutral
2 sentences1937Furthermore, it will be found that in the case cited and apparently relied upon, Phoenix Indemnity Company v. Barrett, 167 Tenn., 116 , 67 S. W. (2d), 135 , the question of causal connection was not referred to or passed upon. *175 If the reasoning of the Court in the McGee case is approved and adhered to — and no good reason has been shown why it should not be — then the additional words in the exclusion clause of the policy before us do not have the effect claimed by the appellant; for, stating again the holding of the Court, it was not the intention of the parties to the insurance contract 1937Furthermore, it will be found that in the case cited and apparently relied upon, Phoenix Indemnity Company v. Barrett, 167 Tenn., 116 , 67 S. W. (2d), 135 , the question of causal connection was not referred to or passed upon. *175 If the reasoning of the Court in the McGee case is approved and adhered to — and no good reason has been shown why it should not be — then the additional words in the exclusion clause of the policy before us do not have the effect claimed by the appellant; for, stating again the holding of the Court, it was not the intention of the parties to the insurance contract | 1 | 1937–1937 |
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.