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.
16 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1932–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Airiz Colemangreen1 sentence2024Cf. United States v. Coleman, 871 F.3d 470, 477 (6th Cir. 2017) (explaining defendant's challenge to the court's jurisdiction over him demonstrated he understood the proceedings were criminal in nature); U.S. ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Caingreen2 sentences2010We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Roberson , 382 S.C. 185, 187-88 , 675 S.E.2d 732, 733-34 (2009) (finding, where defendant was advised at the bond hearing that he was to appear at court on the trial date, he signed a bond form stating the same, he was sent notice of appearance for court, and his background showed a familiarity with the court system, a waiver by conduct of the right to counsel was inferable from defendant's actions by his disregard for the instructions of the court and his inexcusable absence from trial; Faretta requirement 2010We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Roberson , 382 S.C. 185, 187-88 , 675 S.E.2d 732, 733-34 (2009) (finding, where defendant was advised at the bond hearing that he was to appear at court on the trial date, he signed a bond form stating the same, he was sent notice of appearance for court, and his background showed a familiarity with the court system, a waiver by conduct of the right to counsel was inferable from defendant's actions by his disregard for the instructions of the court and his inexcusable absence from trial; Faretta requirement | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robersongreen2 sentences2010We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Roberson , 382 S.C. 185, 187-88 , 675 S.E.2d 732, 733-34 (2009) (finding, where defendant was advised at the bond hearing that he was to appear at court on the trial date, he signed a bond form stating the same, he was sent notice of appearance for court, and his background showed a familiarity with the court system, a waiver by conduct of the right to counsel was inferable from defendant's actions by his disregard for the instructions of the court and his inexcusable absence from trial; Faretta requirement 2010We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Roberson , 382 S.C. 185, 187-88 , 675 S.E.2d 732, 733-34 (2009) (finding, where defendant was advised at the bond hearing that he was to appear at court on the trial date, he signed a bond form stating the same, he was sent notice of appearance for court, and his background showed a familiarity with the court system, a waiver by conduct of the right to counsel was inferable from defendant's actions by his disregard for the instructions of the court and his inexcusable absence from trial; Faretta requirement | 1 | 1 |
Rothgery v. Gillespie Countygreen2 sentences2009See Rothgery v. Gillespie County, Tex.,-U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 2578 , 171 L.Ed.2d 366 (2008) (comprehensively discussing the attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel). 2009See Rothgery v. Gillespie County, Tex.,-U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 2578 , 171 L.Ed.2d 366 (2008) (comprehensively discussing the attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Villalobosgreen2 sentences2008People v. Villalobos, 193 Ill.2d 229 , 250 Ill.Dec. 17 , 737 N.E.2d 639, 645 (2000). 2008People v. Villalobos, 193 Ill.2d 229 , 250 Ill.Dec. 17 , 737 N.E.2d 639, 645 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Covingtongreen1 sentence2004See State v. Cunningham , 275 S.C. 189, 193 , 268 S.E.2d 289, 291 (1980) (holding victims in-court identification was admissible even though victim saw the defendant at a preliminary hearing prior to the in-court identification); State v. Covington , 226 S.E.2d 629, 638 (N.C. 1976) ([T]he viewing of a defendant in the courtroom during the various stages of a criminal proceeding by witnesses who are offered to testify as to identification of the defendant is not, of itself, such a confrontation as will taint an in-court identification unless other circumstances are shown which are so unneces | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cunninghamgreen2 sentences2004See State v. Cunningham , 275 S.C. 189, 193 , 268 S.E.2d 289, 291 (1980) (holding victims in-court identification was admissible even though victim saw the defendant at a preliminary hearing prior to the in-court identification); State v. Covington , 226 S.E.2d 629, 638 (N.C. 1976) ([T]he viewing of a defendant in the courtroom during the various stages of a criminal proceeding by witnesses who are offered to testify as to identification of the defendant is not, of itself, such a confrontation as will taint an in-court identification unless other circumstances are shown which are so unneces 2004See State v. Cunningham , 275 S.C. 189, 193 , 268 S.E.2d 289, 291 (1980) (holding victims in-court identification was admissible even though victim saw the defendant at a preliminary hearing prior to the in-court identification); State v. Covington , 226 S.E.2d 629, 638 (N.C. 1976) ([T]he viewing of a defendant in the courtroom during the various stages of a criminal proceeding by witnesses who are offered to testify as to identification of the defendant is not, of itself, such a confrontation as will taint an in-court identification unless other circumstances are shown which are so unneces | 1 | 1 |
State v. Haskinsgreen1 sentence2004See State v. Cunningham , 275 S.C. 189, 193 , 268 S.E.2d 289, 291 (1980) (holding victims in-court identification was admissible even though victim saw the defendant at a preliminary hearing prior to the in-court identification); State v. Covington , 226 S.E.2d 629, 638 (N.C. 1976) ([T]he viewing of a defendant in the courtroom during the various stages of a criminal proceeding by witnesses who are offered to testify as to identification of the defendant is not, of itself, such a confrontation as will taint an in-court identification unless other circumstances are shown which are so unneces | 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 |
|---|---|---|
A.E.I. Music Network, Inc. v. Business Computers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013A.E.I., 290 F.3d at 955 . 2010Id. at 953-54 . | 4 | 2008–2013 |
State v. Roberson
green
2 sentences2007Roberson , 371 S.C. at 337 , 638 S.E.2d at 94 . 2007Roberson , at 335, 638 S.E.2d at 94 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Anders v. California
green
1 sentence2003Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lowerys counsel attached a petition to be relieved, stating he reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Simmons
green
2 sentences2002In State v. Simmons, 308 S.C. 80 , 417 S.E.2d 92 (1992), the defendant argued a witness’ identification of him was tainted because the witness was present at the defendant’s prior bond hearing. 2002In State v. Simmons, 308 S.C. 80 , 417 S.E.2d 92 (1992), the defendant argued a witness’ identification of him was tainted because the witness was present at the defendant’s prior bond hearing. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Drayton
green
2 sentences1998State v. Drayton, 293 S.C. 417 , 361 S.E.2d 329 (1987). 11 . 1998State v. Drayton, 293 S.C. 417 , 361 S.E.2d 329 (1987). 11 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Sandel v. Whisenhunt
green
1 sentence1935Indeed, as pointed out in Sandel v. Whisenhunt, supra, 168 S. C., 129, at pages 136, 137, 167 S. E., 166 , even the principal cannot be mulcted in punitive damages for- anything occurring after the execution of such undertaking, since the statute (Section 661, Code of 1932), prohibits the same; and it goes without saying that the obligation of the sureties is no greater than that of their principal. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Lightsey v. Rentz
neutral
1 sentence1932This procedure seems to have been approved also in Lightsey v. Rentz, supra. It is further contended by the respondents in the “Crop Case” that the plaintiff cannot recover on the bond executed by them therein, for the reason that the language setting forth the conditions of the bond did not meet the provisions of the statute as to a bond in claim and delivery. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.