16 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1936–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cole v. Rautgreen2 sentences2025Bank of S.C., 286 S.C. 272, 282 , 333 S.E.2d 67, 73 (Ct. App. 1985) ("[W]here a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses and its verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense, the verdict will not be reversed."); Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 407 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); id. ("The rule is consistent with the established notion that the appellate courts in this S 2025Bank of S.C., 286 S.C. 272, 282 , 333 S.E.2d 67, 73 (Ct. App. 1985) ("[W]here a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses and its verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense, the verdict will not be reversed."); Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 407 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); id. ("The rule is consistent with the established notion that the appellate courts in this S | 2 | 2 |
Gold Kist, Inc. v. Citizens & Southern National Bank Ex Rel. Estate of Lanhamgreen2 sentences2025Bank of S.C., 286 S.C. 272, 282 , 333 S.E.2d 67, 73 (Ct. App. 1985) ("[W]here a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses and its verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense, the verdict will not be reversed."); Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 407 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); id. ("The rule is consistent with the established notion that the appellate courts in this S 2025Bank of S.C., 286 S.C. 272, 282 , 333 S.E.2d 67, 73 (Ct. App. 1985) ("[W]here a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses and its verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense, the verdict will not be reversed."); Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 407 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); id. ("The rule is consistent with the established notion that the appellate courts in this S | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mizzellgreen2 sentences2013Id. at 335 , 563 S.E.2d at 320 . 2013Id. at 335 , 563 S.E.2d at 320 . | 1 | 2 |
Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.green2 sentences2016As to issues two, three, and four: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding appellate courts need not address remaining issues when the resolution of a prior issue is dispositive). 2016As to issues two, three, and four: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding appellate courts need not address remaining issues when the resolution of a prior issue is dispositive). | 1 | 1 |
Weatherford v. Pricegreen2 sentences2015See Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 406-07 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("Under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed."); id. at 407 ; 663 S.E.2d at 34 ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); Consignment Sales, LLC v. Tucker Oil Co., 391 S 2015See Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 406-07 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("Under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed."); id. at 407 ; 663 S.E.2d at 34 ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); Consignment Sales, LLC v. Tucker Oil Co., 391 S | 1 | 1 |
James v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., James v. State, 546 S.W.2d 306, 310 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (recognizing that a court may "take judicial notice of the time the sun rose and set on the day of a burglary for purposes of determining if such burglary was committed in the ‘daytime’ ” (citation omitted)); cf. Toole v. Salter, 249 S.C. 354, 362 , 154 S.E.2d 434, 437 (1967) (finding that where the relevant statute provided that a parked vehicle must display lights one-half hour after sunset, the trial court committed prejudicial error in failing to take judicial notice of the time of sunset on the day of the collision). | 1 | 1 |
Consignment Sales, LLC v. Tucker Oil Co.green2 sentences2015See Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 406-07 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("Under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed."); id. at 407 ; 663 S.E.2d at 34 ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); Consignment Sales, LLC v. Tucker Oil Co., 391 S 2015See Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 406-07 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("Under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed."); id. at 407 ; 663 S.E.2d at 34 ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); Consignment Sales, LLC v. Tucker Oil Co., 391 S | 1 | 1 |
Toole v. Saltergreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., James v. State, 546 S.W.2d 306, 310 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (recognizing that a court may "take judicial notice of the time the sun rose and set on the day of a burglary for purposes of determining if such burglary was committed in the ‘daytime’ ” (citation omitted)); cf. Toole v. Salter, 249 S.C. 354, 362 , 154 S.E.2d 434, 437 (1967) (finding that where the relevant statute provided that a parked vehicle must display lights one-half hour after sunset, the trial court committed prejudicial error in failing to take judicial notice of the time of sunset on the day of the collision). 2015See, e.g., James v. State, 546 S.W.2d 306, 310 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (recognizing that a court may "take judicial notice of the time the sun rose and set on the day of a burglary for purposes of determining if such burglary was committed in the ‘daytime’ ” (citation omitted)); cf. Toole v. Salter, 249 S.C. 354, 362 , 154 S.E.2d 434, 437 (1967) (finding that where the relevant statute provided that a parked vehicle must display lights one-half hour after sunset, the trial court committed prejudicial error in failing to take judicial notice of the time of sunset on the day of the collision). | 1 | 1 |
Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenvillegreen2 sentences2015See Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 406-07 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("Under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed."); id. at 407 ; 663 S.E.2d at 34 ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); Consignment Sales, LLC v. Tucker Oil Co., 391 S 2015See Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 406-07 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("Under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed."); id. at 407 ; 663 S.E.2d at 34 ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); Consignment Sales, LLC v. Tucker Oil Co., 391 S | 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. Bell
green
2 sentences1997The question of whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting the questioned evidence must be determined on the basis of the entire record and “generally turn[s] on the facts of each case.” Bell, 302 S.C. at 30 , 393 S.E.2d at 371 . 1997The question of whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting the questioned evidence must be determined on the basis of the entire record and “generally turn[s] on the facts of each case.” Bell, 302 S.C. at 30 , 393 S.E.2d at 371 . | 2 | 1996–1997 |
Herring v. Lawrence Warehouse Co.
green
1 sentence2016Jur., Sec. 5, Page 128)); id. (holding the trial court committed prejudicial error in charging the jury the intent to inflict injury is a necessary element in a civil action for assault and battery). 2. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Al-Amin
green
2 sentences2005In State v. Al-Amin , 353 S.C. 405 , 578 S.E.2d 32 (Ct. App. 2003) we addressed this precise issue. 2005In State v. Al-Amin , 353 S.C. 405 , 578 S.E.2d 32 (Ct. App. 2003) we addressed this precise issue. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
McCrary v. State
green
1 sentence1974It is contended that this constituted prejudicial error. *297 The controlling legal principles are thus stated in the syllabus to McCrary v. State of South Carolina, 249 S. C. 14, 152 S. E. (2d) 235 : “Where the offenses charged in separate indictments are of the same general nature involving connected transactions closely related in kind, place and character, the trial judge has power, in his discretion, to order the indictments tried together over objection by the defendant in the absence of a showing that [defendant’s] substantive rights would be prejudiced.” The offenses charged in the ind | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Griggs
green
1 sentence1968State v. Griggs, 184 S. C. 304, 192 S. E. 360 (1937). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
State v. Rogers
neutral
1 sentence1955It is said that this was prejudicial error under the case of State v. Rogers, 99 S. C. 504, 83 S. E. 971 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
State v. Gregory
green
1 sentence1951There is no conflict between our conclusion hereabout and the leading case of State v. Gregory, 191 S. C. 212, 4 S. E. (2d) 1 , as is seen by reference to it. *356 It is also contended that the court committed prejudicial error by allowing testimony by one of the police officers of an apparent attempt at robbery of the same store on the night before the fire. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
State v. Scott
green
2 sentences1951State v. Scott , 209 S.C. 61 , 38 S.E. (2d) 902 . 1951State v. Scott , 209 S.C. 61 , 38 S.E. (2d) 902 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
State v. Rogers
neutral
1 sentence1936State v. Rogers, 130 S. C., 426, 126 S. E., 329 . | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.