savings clause in South Carolina

18 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2013 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.

Followed or applied (14)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Browngreen sc · 2013 · cited in 3 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013This identical savings clause was the basis for this Court’s decisions in State v. Dawson, 402 S.C. 160 , 740 S.E.2d 501 (2013), and State v. Brown, 402 S.C. 119 , 740 S.E.2d 493 (2013). 2013This identical savings clause was the basis for this Court’s decisions in State v. Dawson, 402 S.C. 160 , 740 S.E.2d 501 (2013), and State v. Brown, 402 S.C. 119 , 740 S.E.2d 493 (2013).	2	3
State v. Bolingreen scctapp · 2009 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013To read the savings clause in any other way would result in a prohibited alteration of the statute’s operation.”); Bolin, 381 S.C. at 562 , 673 S.E.2d at 887 (“By stating that the Act is to have no effect on pending actions, criminal prosecutions, rights, duties, or liabilities, and that all laws repealed or amended by the Act must be treated as remaining in full force and effect, the clear language of the Act indicates that it is prospective.”). 2013To read the savings clause in any other way would result in a prohibited alteration of the statute’s operation.”); Bolin, 381 S.C. at 562 , 673 S.E.2d at 887 (“By stating that the Act is to have no effect on pending actions, criminal prosecutions, rights, duties, or liabilities, and that all laws repealed or amended by the Act must be treated as remaining in full force and effect, the clear language of the Act indicates that it is prospective.”).	2	2
State v. Dickeygreen scctapp · 2008 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2011–2013 2 sentences 2013Co. v. United States, 208 U.S. 452, 464-70 , 28 S.Ct. 313 , 52 L.Ed. 567 (1908)); see also State v. Dickey, 380 S.C. 384, 405 , 669 S.E.2d 917, 928 (Ct.App.2008) (finding an action is “pending” for purposes of a savings clause where the crime occurred before the effective date of the new legislation), overruled on other grounds, 394 S.C. 491 , 716 S.E.2d 97 (2011). 2013Co. v. United States, 208 U.S. 452, 464-70 , 28 S.Ct. 313 , 52 L.Ed. 567 (1908)); see also State v. Dickey, 380 S.C. 384, 405 , 669 S.E.2d 917, 928 (Ct.App.2008) (finding an action is “pending” for purposes of a savings clause where the crime occurred before the effective date of the new legislation), overruled on other grounds, 394 S.C. 491 , 716 S.E.2d 97 (2011).	1	2
Advance International, Inc. v. North Carolina National Bankgreen sc · 1996 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1996–2002 2 sentences 2002See State v. Rider, 320 S.C. 533, 534 , 466 S.E.2d 367, 368 (1996). 1996While the general rule is that the repeal of a statute without a savings clause operates retroactively to blot out pending claims, State v. Rider, — S.C. —, 466 S.E. (2d) 367 (1996); Taylor v. Murphy, 293 S.C. 316 , 360 S.E. (2d) 314 (1987), it is clear that a proper savings clause will have the effect of preserving a pending suit.	1	2
State v. Pittmangreen sc · 2007 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 561 , 647 S.E.2d 144, 161 (2007) (“Where the statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court has no right to impose another meaning.”). 2013See State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 561 , 647 S.E.2d 144, 161 (2007) (“Where the statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court has no right to impose another meaning.”).	1	1
State v. Dickeygreen sc · 2011 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Co. v. United States, 208 U.S. 452, 464-70 , 28 S.Ct. 313 , 52 L.Ed. 567 (1908)); see also State v. Dickey, 380 S.C. 384, 405 , 669 S.E.2d 917, 928 (Ct.App.2008) (finding an action is “pending” for purposes of a savings clause where the crime occurred before the effective date of the new legislation), overruled on other grounds, 394 S.C. 491 , 716 S.E.2d 97 (2011). 2013Co. v. United States, 208 U.S. 452, 464-70 , 28 S.Ct. 313 , 52 L.Ed. 567 (1908)); see also State v. Dickey, 380 S.C. 384, 405 , 669 S.E.2d 917, 928 (Ct.App.2008) (finding an action is “pending” for purposes of a savings clause where the crime occurred before the effective date of the new legislation), overruled on other grounds, 394 S.C. 491 , 716 S.E.2d 97 (2011).	1	1
State v. Bryantgreen scctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013However, in that case, we determined the amendment did not "repeal[] or amend[] any previously existing law as contemplated by the savings clause.” Id. at 510 , 675 S.E.2d at 819 . 2013However, in that case, we determined the amendment did not "repeal[] or amend[] any previously existing law as contemplated by the savings clause.” Id. at 510 , 675 S.E.2d at 819 .	1	1
Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.green sc · 1999 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009No. 15 at 39, 43) (holding the savings clause accompanying the enacting legislation did not preclude application of section 17-23-175 to cases tried after the date of its enactment because section 17-23-175 did not repeal or amend any existing law); Id. at 45 (finding the application of section 17-23-175 does not constitute an ex post facto violation because the statute deals with evidentiary matters, which are not penal in nature); Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc. , 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (providing an appellate court need not address additional issues if 2009No. 15 at 39, 43) (holding the savings clause accompanying the enacting legislation did not preclude application of section 17-23-175 to cases tried after the date of its enactment because section 17-23-175 did not repeal or amend any existing law); Id. at 45 (finding the application of section 17-23-175 does not constitute an ex post facto violation because the statute deals with evidentiary matters, which are not penal in nature); Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc. , 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (providing an appellate court need not address additional issues if	1	1
Deltoro v. McMullengreen scctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007See Deltoro, 322 S.C. at 333 , 471 S.E.2d at 745 (“[A] proper savings clause will have the effect of preserving a pending suit.”). 2007See Deltoro, 322 S.C. at 333 , 471 S.E.2d at 745 (“[A] proper savings clause will have the effect of preserving a pending suit.”).	1	1
Cambridge Co. v. East Slope Investment Corp.green colo · 1985 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006Corp., 700 P.2d 537, 542 (Colo. 1985); Shiver v. Benton, 251 Ga. 284 , 304 S.E.2d 903, 906-07 (1983); cf. S.C.Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B) (holding that under *370 the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities, courts must reform a disposition that was created before July 1, 1987 by inserting a savings clause that preserves the transferor’s plan of distribution “within the limits of the rule against perpetuities”).	1	1
Shiver v. Bentongreen ga · 1983 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006Corp., 700 P.2d 537, 542 (Colo. 1985); Shiver v. Benton, 251 Ga. 284 , 304 S.E.2d 903, 906-07 (1983); cf. S.C.Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B) (holding that under 370 the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities, courts must reform a disposition that was created before July 1, 1987 by inserting a savings clause that preserves the transferor’s plan of distribution “within the limits of the rule against perpetuities”). 2006Corp., 700 P.2d 537, 542 (Colo. 1985); Shiver v. Benton, 251 Ga. 284 , 304 S.E.2d 903, 906-07 (1983); cf. S.C.Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B) (holding that under 370 the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities, courts must reform a disposition that was created before July 1, 1987 by inserting a savings clause that preserves the transferor’s plan of distribution “within the limits of the rule against perpetuities”).	1	1
Coon v. Coongreen scctapp · 2003 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005No. 101-665, at 3005 (1990); Coon, 356 S.C. at 350 , 588 S.E.2d at 628 (finding that by “jurisdiction,” the House meant “authority”). 7 We disagree, however, with the Court of Appeal’s suggestion that the USFSPA’s savings clause, section 1408(e)(5), “further undermines any argument that Congress explicitly directed the fifty-percent limitation is jurisdictional____” Coon, 356 S.C. at 351-52 , 588 S.E.2d at 629 . 2005No. 101-665, at 3005 (1990); Coon, 356 S.C. at 350 , 588 S.E.2d at 628 (finding that by “jurisdiction,” the House meant “authority”). 7 We disagree, however, with the Court of Appeal’s suggestion that the USFSPA’s savings clause, section 1408(e)(5), “further undermines any argument that Congress explicitly directed the fifty-percent limitation is jurisdictional____” Coon, 356 S.C. at 351-52 , 588 S.E.2d at 629 .	1	1
State v. Ridergreen sc · 1996 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 1 sentence 2002See State v. Rider, 320 S.C. 533, 534 , 466 S.E.2d 367, 368 (1996).	1	1
State v. Pattersongreen sc · 1951 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994See also State v. Patterson, 220 S.C. 269 , 66 S.E. (2d) 875 (1951); Vaughn v. Kalyvas, 288 S.C. 358 , 342 S.E. (2d) 617 (Ct. App. 1986). 1994See also State v. Patterson, 220 S.C. 269 , 66 S.E. (2d) 875 (1951); Vaughn v. Kalyvas, 288 S.C. 358 , 342 S.E. (2d) 617 (Ct. App. 1986).	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 (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Pierce v. State green sc · 2000 2 sentences 2009Generally, a savings clause is intended to be “a restriction in a repealing act, which is intended to save rights, pending proceedings, penalties, etc., from the annihilation which would result from an unrestricted appeal.” Pierce v. State, 338 S.C. 139 , 146 n. 3, 526 S.E.2d 222 , 225 n. 3 (2000) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1343 (6th ed. 1990)). 2009Generally, a savings clause is intended to be “a restriction in a repealing act, which is intended to save rights, pending proceedings, penalties, etc., from the annihilation which would result from an unrestricted appeal.” Pierce v. State, 338 S.C. 139 , 146 n. 3, 526 S.E.2d 222 , 225 n. 3 (2000) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1343 (6th ed. 1990)).	2	2009–2013
Great Northern Railway Co. v. United States green scotus · 1908 2 sentences 2013Co. v. United States, 208 U.S. 452, 464-70 , 28 S.Ct. 313 , 52 L.Ed. 567 (1908)); see also State v. Dickey, 380 S.C. 384, 405 , 669 S.E.2d 917, 928 (Ct.App.2008) (finding an action is “pending” for purposes of a savings clause where the crime occurred before the effective date of the new legislation), overruled on other grounds, 394 S.C. 491 , 716 S.E.2d 97 (2011). 2013Co. v. United States, 208 U.S. 452, 464-70 , 28 S.Ct. 313 , 52 L.Ed. 567 (1908)); see also State v. Dickey, 380 S.C. 384, 405 , 669 S.E.2d 917, 928 (Ct.App.2008) (finding an action is “pending” for purposes of a savings clause where the crime occurred before the effective date of the new legislation), overruled on other grounds, 394 S.C. 491 , 716 S.E.2d 97 (2011).	1	2013–2013
State v. Dawson green sc · 2013 2 sentences 2013This identical savings clause was the basis for this Court’s decisions in State v. Dawson, 402 S.C. 160 , 740 S.E.2d 501 (2013), and State v. Brown, 402 S.C. 119 , 740 S.E.2d 493 (2013). 2013This identical savings clause was the basis for this Court’s decisions in State v. Dawson, 402 S.C. 160 , 740 S.E.2d 501 (2013), and State v. Brown, 402 S.C. 119 , 740 S.E.2d 493 (2013).	1	2013–2013
Edwards v. State Law Enforcement Division green sc · 2011 2 sentences 2013See Brown, 402 S.C. at 127 , 740 S.E.2d at 496-97 ; Edwards, 395 S.C. at 579 , 720 S.E.2d at 466 . 2013See Brown, 402 S.C. at 127 , 740 S.E.2d at 496-97 ; Edwards, 395 S.C. at 579 , 720 S.E.2d at 466 .	1	2013–2013
Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. green scotus · 2000 2 sentences 2012In Geier , a majority of the USSC found the presence of a statutory savings clause made clear Congress intended state tort suits to fall outside the scope of the express preemption clause; however, the savings clause did not foreclose or limit the operation of "ordinary pre-emption principles, grounded in longstanding precedent.” Geier, 529 U.S. at 868 , 120 S.Ct. 1913 . 2012In Geier , a majority of the USSC found the presence of a statutory savings clause made clear Congress intended state tort suits to fall outside the scope of the express preemption clause; however, the savings clause did not foreclose or limit the operation of "ordinary pre-emption principles, grounded in longstanding precedent.” Geier, 529 U.S. at 868 , 120 S.Ct. 1913 .	1	2012–2012
Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux green scotus · 1987 2 sentences 1998Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 48-51 , 107 S.Ct. 1549, 1553-55 , 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987). 1998Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 48-51 , 107 S.Ct. 1549, 1553-55 , 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987).	1	1998–1998
South Carolina v. Gaillard green · 1880 2 sentences 1996State of South Carolina v. Gaillard, 101 U.S. 433 , 25 L.Ed. 937 (1879); 20 Am. 1996State of South Carolina v. Gaillard, 101 U.S. 433 , 25 L.Ed. 937 (1879); 20 Am.	1	1996–1996
Taylor v. Murphy green sc · 1987 2 sentences 1996While the general rule is that the repeal of a statute without a savings clause operates retroactively to blot out pending claims, State v. Rider, — S.C. —, 466 S.E. (2d) 367 (1996); Taylor v. Murphy, 293 S.C. 316 , 360 S.E. (2d) 314 (1987), it is clear that a proper savings clause will have the effect of preserving a pending suit. 1996While the general rule is that the repeal of a statute without a savings clause operates retroactively to blot out pending claims, State v. Rider, — S.C. —, 466 S.E. (2d) 367 (1996); Taylor v. Murphy, 293 S.C. 316 , 360 S.E. (2d) 314 (1987), it is clear that a proper savings clause will have the effect of preserving a pending suit.	1	1996–1996
State v. Defee neutral sc · 1965 2 sentences 1994The Respondents argue that in State v. Defee, 246 S.C. 555 , 144 S.E. (2d) 806 (1965), and in State v. Spencer, 177 S.C. 346 , 181 S.E. 217 (1935), we held that the absence of a savings clause was fatal to continuing prosecutions under a repealed statue. 1994The Respondents argue that in State v. Defee, 246 S.C. 555 , 144 S.E. (2d) 806 (1965), and in State v. Spencer, 177 S.C. 346 , 181 S.E. 217 (1935), we held that the absence of a savings clause was fatal to continuing prosecutions under a repealed statue.	1	1994–1994
Vaughan v. Kalyvas green scctapp · 1986 2 sentences 1994See also State v. Patterson, 220 S.C. 269 , 66 S.E. (2d) 875 (1951); Vaughn v. Kalyvas, 288 S.C. 358 , 342 S.E. (2d) 617 (Ct. App. 1986). 1994See also State v. Patterson, 220 S.C. 269 , 66 S.E. (2d) 875 (1951); Vaughn v. Kalyvas, 288 S.C. 358 , 342 S.E. (2d) 617 (Ct. App. 1986).	1	1994–1994
State v. Spencer green sc · 1935 2 sentences 1994The Respondents argue that in State v. Defee, 246 S.C. 555 , 144 S.E. (2d) 806 (1965), and in State v. Spencer, 177 S.C. 346 , 181 S.E. 217 (1935), we held that the absence of a savings clause was fatal to continuing prosecutions under a repealed statue. 1994The Respondents argue that in State v. Defee, 246 S.C. 555 , 144 S.E. (2d) 806 (1965), and in State v. Spencer, 177 S.C. 346 , 181 S.E. 217 (1935), we held that the absence of a savings clause was fatal to continuing prosecutions under a repealed statue.	1	1994–1994
Ewell v. Daggs green · 1883 2 sentences 1986Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U. S. 143 , 2 S. Ct. 408 , 27 L. 1986Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U. S. 143 , 2 S. Ct. 408 , 27 L.	1	1986–1986

Where else courts name it

CA 211 (1947–2026) TX 172 (1947–2025) IL 112 (1952–2023) IN 72 (1971–2026) NY 57 (1946–2026) CT 51 (1985–2025) PA 44 (1953–2025) MS 44 (1958–2024) WA 40 (1971–2026) FL 40 (1979–2026) OH 31 (1966–2025) LA 26 (1941–2021) NJ 21 (1942–2023) IA 21 (1972–2022) MA 20 (1982–2015) MO 20 (1970–2022) AZ 19 (1969–2014) SC 18 (1986–2013) NM 17 (1942–2026) MN 17 (1977–2018) AL 17 (1981–2018) DC 15 (1976–2024) MI 15 (1968–2025) KS 14 (1960–2012) OR 14 (1945–2025) DE 13 (1964–2024) OK 13 (1977–2022) MT 12 (1964–2019) RI 11 (1969–2015) NE 11 (1983–2022) MD 10 (1972–2016) VT 10 (1995–2015) WY 9 (1980–2021) AR 9 (1944–2016) WV 9 (1975–2012) WI 9 (1993–2026) CO 8 (1982–2025) AK 8 (1980–2024) GA 8 (1986–2008) HI 8 (1971–2024) NC 8 (1975–2024) TN 8 (1962–2010) ME 7 (1972–2012) VA 7 (1985–2023) KY 6 (2004–2020) UT 6 (1931–2021) NV 5 (1975–2024) NH 5 (2002–2014) ID 3 (1980–2024) ND 2 (1987–2006) MP 2 (1985–1985)

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