17 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2026 2 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. Gordongreen2 sentences2026"Under the Castle Doctrine, '[o]ne attacked, without fault on his part, on his own premises, has the right, in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which ordinarily is an essential element of that defense.'" State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 291, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Gordon, 128 S.C. 422, 425 , 122 S.E. 501, 502 (1924)). 2026"Under the Castle Doctrine, '[o]ne attacked, without fault on his part, on his own premises, has the right, in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which ordinarily is an essential element of that defense.'" State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 291, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Gordon, 128 S.C. 422, 425 , 122 S.E. 501, 502 (1924)). | 6 | 8 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2026"Under the Castle Doctrine, '[o]ne attacked, without fault on his part, on his own premises, has the right, in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which ordinarily is an essential element of that defense.'" State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 291, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Gordon, 128 S.C. 422, 425 , 122 S.E. 501, 502 (1924)). 2026"Under the Castle Doctrine, '[o]ne attacked, without fault on his part, on his own premises, has the right, in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which ordinarily is an essential element of that defense.'" State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 291, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Gordon, 128 S.C. 422, 425 , 122 S.E. 501, 502 (1924)). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Wigginsgreen2 sentences2021The defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance." ((omissions by court) quoting State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538, 545 , 500 S.E.2d 489, 493 (1998))); Jones, 416 S.C. at 291 , 786 S.E.2d at 136 ("Under the Castle Doctrine, '[o]ne attacked, without fault on his part, on his own premises, has the right, in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which ordinarily is an essential element of that defense.'" (quoting State v. Gordon, 128 2021The defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance." ((omissions by court) quoting State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538, 545 , 500 S.E.2d 489, 493 (1998))); Jones, 416 S.C. at 291 , 786 S.E.2d at 136 ("Under the Castle Doctrine, '[o]ne attacked, without fault on his part, on his own premises, has the right, in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which ordinarily is an essential element of that defense.'" (quoting State v. Gordon, 128 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bacotegreen2 sentences2020See State v. Bacote, 331 S.C. 328, 331 , 503 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1998) ("In the context of a default judgment, collateral estoppel or issue preclusion does not apply because an essential element of that doctrine requires that the claim sought to be precluded actually have been litigated in the earlier litigation." (citing 50 C.J.S. 2020See State v. Bacote, 331 S.C. 328, 331 , 503 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1998) ("In the context of a default judgment, collateral estoppel or issue preclusion does not apply because an essential element of that doctrine requires that the claim sought to be precluded actually have been litigated in the earlier litigation." (citing 50 C.J.S. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hewittgreen2 sentences2008Under the Castle Doctrine, “one attacked, without fault on his own part, on his own premises, has the right in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which ordinarily is an essential element of that defense.” State v. Hewitt, 205 S.C. 207, 212 , 31 S.E.2d 257, 258 (1944). 2008Under the Castle Doctrine, “one attacked, without fault on his own part, on his own premises, has the right in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which ordinarily is an essential element of that defense.” State v. Hewitt, 205 S.C. 207, 212 , 31 S.E.2d 257, 258 (1944). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Currygreen2 sentences2021The defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance." ((omissions by court) quoting State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538, 545 , 500 S.E.2d 489, 493 (1998))); Jones, 416 S.C. at 291 , 786 S.E.2d at 136 ("Under the Castle Doctrine, '[o]ne attacked, without fault on his part, on his own premises, has the right, in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which ordinarily is an essential element of that defense.'" (quoting State v. Gordon, 128 2021The defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance." ((omissions by court) quoting State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538, 545 , 500 S.E.2d 489, 493 (1998))); Jones, 416 S.C. at 291 , 786 S.E.2d at 136 ("Under the Castle Doctrine, '[o]ne attacked, without fault on his part, on his own premises, has the right, in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which ordinarily is an essential element of that defense.'" (quoting State v. Gordon, 128 | 1 | 2 |
Gilchrist v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Under the Castle Doctrine, the absence of a duty to retreat does not extend to a visitor or social guest in the home of another unless “the attacker is an intruder.” See State v. Brown, 321 S.C. 184 , 467 S.E.2d 922 (1996) (applying the common law and holding that “a lawful guest attacked in the owner’s home has no duty to retreat where the attacker is an intruder” but “where the attacker is the homeowner, a lawful guest has a duty to retreat”); see also Gilchrist v. State, 364 S.C. 173 , 612 S.E.2d 702 (2005) (overruling precedent that elevated a “club” to the possessory status of a home or p 2013Under the Castle Doctrine, the absence of a duty to retreat does not extend to a visitor or social guest in the home of another unless “the attacker is an intruder.” See State v. Brown, 321 S.C. 184 , 467 S.E.2d 922 (1996) (applying the common law and holding that “a lawful guest attacked in the owner’s home has no duty to retreat where the attacker is an intruder” but “where the attacker is the homeowner, a lawful guest has a duty to retreat”); see also Gilchrist v. State, 364 S.C. 173 , 612 S.E.2d 702 (2005) (overruling precedent that elevated a “club” to the possessory status of a home or p | 1 | 1 |
Bloom v. Ravoiragreen2 sentences2012See Bloom v. Ravoira, 339 S.C. 417, 422 , 529 S.E.2d 710, 712 (2000) ("To establish a cause of action in negligence, a plaintiff must prove the following three elements: (1) a duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission; and (3) damage proximately resulting from the breach of duty."); Fuller v. E. 2012See Bloom v. Ravoira, 339 S.C. 417, 422 , 529 S.E.2d 710, 712 (2000) ("To establish a cause of action in negligence, a plaintiff must prove the following three elements: (1) a duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission; and (3) damage proximately resulting from the breach of duty."); Fuller v. E. | 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. Gibbs
green
2 sentences1926The Bradley Case was cited and approved in State v. Gordon, 128 S. C., 422; 122 S. E., 501 , where Mr. Justice Marion, speaking for the Court, used this language: “One attacked, without fault on his part, on his own premises, has the right, in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which, ordinarily, is an essential element of that defense.” To the same effect are the cases of State v. Gibbs, 113 *151 S. C., 256; 102 S. E., 333 ; State v. Brooks, 79 S. C., 144; 60 S. E., 518 . . 1924State v. Gibbs, 113 S. C., 256; 102 S. E., 333 . | 2 | 1924–1926 |
Kunst v. Loree
green
2 sentences2020Judgments § 797 (1997))); Kunst v. Loree, 404 S.C. 649 , 746 S.E.2d 360 (Ct. App. 2013) (stating the essential element requiring that the claim was actually litigated is not met where there is a default). 2020Judgments § 797 (1997))); Kunst v. Loree, 404 S.C. 649 , 746 S.E.2d 360 (Ct. App. 2013) (stating the essential element requiring that the claim was actually litigated is not met where there is a default). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Grantham
green
2 sentences2018The circuit court stated, "At no point is it required that [Scott] retreat into his home to be fired upon without him being able to defend ... himself." See State v. Jones , 416 S.C. 283 , 291, 786 S.E.2d 132 , 136 (2016) ("Under the Castle Doctrine, '[o]ne attacked, without fault on his part, on his own premises, has the right, in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which ordinarily is an essential element of that defense.' " (quoting State v. Gordon , 128 S.C. 422 , 425, 122 S.E. 501 , 502 (1924) ) ); State v. Grantham , 224 S.C. 41 , 45, 77 S.E. 2018The circuit court stated, "At no point is it required that [Scott] retreat into his home to be fired upon without him being able to defend ... himself." See State v. Jones , 416 S.C. 283 , 291, 786 S.E.2d 132 , 136 (2016) ("Under the Castle Doctrine, '[o]ne attacked, without fault on his part, on his own premises, has the right, in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which ordinarily is an essential element of that defense.' " (quoting State v. Gordon , 128 S.C. 422 , 425, 122 S.E. 501 , 502 (1924) ) ); State v. Grantham , 224 S.C. 41 , 45, 77 S.E. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Farrar v. Hobby
green
1 sentence2016Thus, when a plaintiff seeking compensatory damages “recovers only nominal damages because of his failure to prove an essential element of his claim for monetary relief, the only reasonable fee is usually no fee at all.” Id. at 115, 113 S.Ct. 566 (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2013Under the Castle Doctrine, the absence of a duty to retreat does not extend to a visitor or social guest in the home of another unless “the attacker is an intruder.” See State v. Brown, 321 S.C. 184 , 467 S.E.2d 922 (1996) (applying the common law and holding that “a lawful guest attacked in the owner’s home has no duty to retreat where the attacker is an intruder” but “where the attacker is the homeowner, a lawful guest has a duty to retreat”); see also Gilchrist v. State, 364 S.C. 173 , 612 S.E.2d 702 (2005) (overruling precedent that elevated a “club” to the possessory status of a home or p 2013Under the Castle Doctrine, the absence of a duty to retreat does not extend to a visitor or social guest in the home of another unless “the attacker is an intruder.” See State v. Brown, 321 S.C. 184 , 467 S.E.2d 922 (1996) (applying the common law and holding that “a lawful guest attacked in the owner’s home has no duty to retreat where the attacker is an intruder” but “where the attacker is the homeowner, a lawful guest has a duty to retreat”); see also Gilchrist v. State, 364 S.C. 173 , 612 S.E.2d 702 (2005) (overruling precedent that elevated a “club” to the possessory status of a home or p | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Johnston Ex Rel. Estate of Johnston v. Ward
green
1 sentence1986Johnston v. Ward, 288 S. C. 603, 344 S. E. (2d) 166 (Ct. App. 1986), cert. denied, Davis’ Advance Sheets No. 39 at 1 (Ct. App. October 18, 1986). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Bailey v. Lyman Printing and Finishing Co.
green
1 sentence1966Bailey v. Lyman Printing and Finishing Co., 245 S. C. 13, 22, 138 S. E. (2d) 410 ; West’s South Carolina Digest, Estoppel, Key No. 58. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
State v. Brooks
green
2 sentences1926We quote the following from the opinion in that case: “If one is violently attacked at some other place [outside of his home or beyond the curtilage] on his premises, * * * he has the right, in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which, ordinarily, is an essential element of that defense.” In the Bradley Case, this further statement is made: “In State v. Brooks, 79 S. C., 144; 60 S. E., 518 ; 17 L. 1926The Bradley Case was cited and approved in State v. Gordon, 128 S. C., 422; 122 S. E., 501 , where Mr. Justice Marion, speaking for the Court, used this language: “One attacked, without fault on his part, on his own premises, has the right, in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which, ordinarily, is an essential element of that defense.” To the same effect are the cases of State v. Gibbs, 113 *151 S. C., 256; 102 S. E., 333 ; State v. Brooks, 79 S. C., 144; 60 S. E., 518 . . | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.