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.
15 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 4 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. Councilgreen2 sentences2020Watson, 389 S.C. at 449-50 , 699 S.E.2d at 177 (footnote omitted) (quoting Council, 335 S.C. at 17 , 515 S.E.2d at 517 ); see also id. at 450 n.3, 699 S.E.2d at 177 n.3 (noting "[t]he test for reliability [of] expert testimony does not lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach" but reasoning that when an expert's testimony was based on "scientific principles and theories," the Council factors were "applicable and relevant to the reliability determination"). 2020Watson, 389 S.C. at 449-50 , 699 S.E.2d at 177 (footnote omitted) (quoting Council, 335 S.C. at 17 , 515 S.E.2d at 517 ); see also id. at 450 n.3, 699 S.E.2d at 177 n.3 (noting "[t]he test for reliability [of] expert testimony does not lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach" but reasoning that when an expert's testimony was based on "scientific principles and theories," the Council factors were "applicable and relevant to the reliability determination"). | 4 | 6 |
Graves v. Cas Medical Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2020See 401 S.C. at 73 , 735 S.E.2d at 655 (describing the trial court's analysis of the expert's depositions before excluding the expert opinion and granting summary judgment). 322 S.C. 234, 248 , 471 S.E.2d 689, 697 (1996) ("The party offering the expert has the burden of showing his witness possesses the necessary learning, skill, or practical experience to enable the witness to give opinion testimony."), overruled on other grounds by State v. Burdette, 427 S.C. 490 , 832 S.E.2d 575 (2019); see also United States v. Williams, 865 F.3d 1328, 1338 (11th Cir. 2017) (stating "the proponent of exper 2020See 401 S.C. at 73 , 735 S.E.2d at 655 (describing the trial court's analysis of the expert's depositions before excluding the expert opinion and granting summary judgment). 322 S.C. 234, 248 , 471 S.E.2d 689, 697 (1996) ("The party offering the expert has the burden of showing his witness possesses the necessary learning, skill, or practical experience to enable the witness to give opinion testimony."), overruled on other grounds by State v. Burdette, 427 S.C. 490 , 832 S.E.2d 575 (2019); see also United States v. Williams, 865 F.3d 1328, 1338 (11th Cir. 2017) (stating "the proponent of exper | 2 | 2 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2018"The foundational reliability requirement for expert testimony does not lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach, for the Council factors for scientific evidence serve no useful analytical purpose when evaluating nonscientific expert testimony." White , 382 S.C. at 274 , 676 S.E.2d at 688 (footnote omitted). 2018"The foundational reliability requirement for expert testimony does not lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach, for the Council factors for scientific evidence serve no useful analytical purpose when evaluating nonscientific expert testimony." White , 382 S.C. at 274 , 676 S.E.2d at 688 (footnote omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Makinsgreen2 sentences2026See Makins, 433 S.C. at 500, 860 S.E.2d at 670 ("The decision to admit or exclude testimony from an expert witness rests within the trial court's sound discretion."); Stokes-Craven Holding Corp., 416 S.C. at 536 , 787 S.E.2d at 495 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's order is controlled by an error of law or when there is no evidentiary support for the trial court's factual conclusions."). 2026See Makins, 433 S.C. at 500, 860 S.E.2d at 670 ("The decision to admit or exclude testimony from an expert witness rests within the trial court's sound discretion."); Stokes-Craven Holding Corp., 416 S.C. at 536 , 787 S.E.2d at 495 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's order is controlled by an error of law or when there is no evidentiary support for the trial court's factual conclusions."). | 1 | 1 |
Stokes-Craven Holding Corp. v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2026See Makins, 433 S.C. at 500, 860 S.E.2d at 670 ("The decision to admit or exclude testimony from an expert witness rests within the trial court's sound discretion."); Stokes-Craven Holding Corp., 416 S.C. at 536 , 787 S.E.2d at 495 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's order is controlled by an error of law or when there is no evidentiary support for the trial court's factual conclusions."). 2026See Makins, 433 S.C. at 500, 860 S.E.2d at 670 ("The decision to admit or exclude testimony from an expert witness rests within the trial court's sound discretion."); Stokes-Craven Holding Corp., 416 S.C. at 536 , 787 S.E.2d at 495 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's order is controlled by an error of law or when there is no evidentiary support for the trial court's factual conclusions."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pagangreen2 sentences2025Council, 335 S.C. at 19 , 515 S.E.2d at 517 ("In considering the admissibility of scientific evidence . . . the [c]ourt looks at several factors, including . . . prior application of the method to the type of evidence involved in the case . . . ."); Pagan, 369 S.C. at 208 , 631 S.E.2d at 265 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."). 2025Council, 335 S.C. at 19 , 515 S.E.2d at 517 ("In considering the admissibility of scientific evidence . . . the [c]ourt looks at several factors, including . . . prior application of the method to the type of evidence involved in the case . . . ."); Pagan, 369 S.C. at 208 , 631 S.E.2d at 265 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Von Dohlenred2 sentences2020See 401 S.C. at 73 , 735 S.E.2d at 655 (describing the trial court's analysis of the expert's depositions before excluding the expert opinion and granting summary judgment). 322 S.C. 234, 248 , 471 S.E.2d 689, 697 (1996) ("The party offering the expert has the burden of showing his witness possesses the necessary learning, skill, or practical experience to enable the witness to give opinion testimony."), overruled on other grounds by State v. Burdette, 427 S.C. 490 , 832 S.E.2d 575 (2019); see also United States v. Williams, 865 F.3d 1328, 1338 (11th Cir. 2017) (stating "the proponent of exper 2020See 401 S.C. at 73 , 735 S.E.2d at 655 (describing the trial court's analysis of the expert's depositions before excluding the expert opinion and granting summary judgment). 322 S.C. 234, 248 , 471 S.E.2d 689, 697 (1996) ("The party offering the expert has the burden of showing his witness possesses the necessary learning, skill, or practical experience to enable the witness to give opinion testimony."), overruled on other grounds by State v. Burdette, 427 S.C. 490 , 832 S.E.2d 575 (2019); see also United States v. Williams, 865 F.3d 1328, 1338 (11th Cir. 2017) (stating "the proponent of exper | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burdettegreen1 sentence2020See 401 S.C. at 73 , 735 S.E.2d at 655 (describing the trial court's analysis of the expert's depositions before excluding the expert opinion and granting summary judgment). 322 S.C. 234, 248 , 471 S.E.2d 689, 697 (1996) ("The party offering the expert has the burden of showing his witness possesses the necessary learning, skill, or practical experience to enable the witness to give opinion testimony."), overruled on other grounds by State v. Burdette, 427 S.C. 490 , 832 S.E.2d 575 (2019); see also United States v. Williams, 865 F.3d 1328, 1338 (11th Cir. 2017) (stating "the proponent of exper | 1 | 1 |
Watson v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2020Watson, 389 S.C. at 449-50 , 699 S.E.2d at 177 (footnote omitted) (quoting Council, 335 S.C. at 17 , 515 S.E.2d at 517 ); see also id. at 450 n.3, 699 S.E.2d at 177 n.3 (noting "[t]he test for reliability [of] expert testimony does not lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach" but reasoning that when an expert's testimony was based on "scientific principles and theories," the Council factors were "applicable and relevant to the reliability determination"). 2020Watson, 389 S.C. at 449-50 , 699 S.E.2d at 177 (footnote omitted) (quoting Council, 335 S.C. at 17 , 515 S.E.2d at 517 ); see also id. at 450 n.3, 699 S.E.2d at 177 n.3 (noting "[t]he test for reliability [of] expert testimony does not lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach" but reasoning that when an expert's testimony was based on "scientific principles and theories," the Council factors were "applicable and relevant to the reliability determination"). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Vanston Venner Williamsgreen1 sentence2020See 401 S.C. at 73 , 735 S.E.2d at 655 (describing the trial court's analysis of the expert's depositions before excluding the expert opinion and granting summary judgment). 322 S.C. 234, 248 , 471 S.E.2d 689, 697 (1996) ("The party offering the expert has the burden of showing his witness possesses the necessary learning, skill, or practical experience to enable the witness to give opinion testimony."), overruled on other grounds by State v. Burdette, 427 S.C. 490 , 832 S.E.2d 575 (2019); see also United States v. Williams, 865 F.3d 1328, 1338 (11th Cir. 2017) (stating "the proponent of exper | 1 | 1 |
Lorenzen v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Lorenzen v. State, 376 S.C. 521, 533 , 657 S.E.2d 771, 778 (2008) (stating that the South Carolina Supreme Court “ ‘has consistently held the results of polygraph examinations are generally not admissible because the reliability of the tests is questionable.’ ” (quoting State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 23 , 515 S.E.2d 508, 519 (1999))). *168 Further, although the State initially indicated the Council factors for the reliability of scientific testimony 7 are wholly irrelevant in the context of nonscientific experts, it nonetheless proposes this court could find White is satisfied based 2010See, e.g., Lorenzen v. State, 376 S.C. 521, 533 , 657 S.E.2d 771, 778 (2008) (stating that the South Carolina Supreme Court “ ‘has consistently held the results of polygraph examinations are generally not admissible because the reliability of the tests is questionable.’ ” (quoting State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 23 , 515 S.E.2d 508, 519 (1999))). *168 Further, although the State initially indicated the Council factors for the reliability of scientific testimony 7 are wholly irrelevant in the context of nonscientific experts, it nonetheless proposes this court could find White is satisfied based | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023Dr. Brody also stated that the consensus "among scientists who understand the literature is that all of the asbestos [fiber] varieties . . . cause mesothelioma." Additionally, he explained that whether an individual develops mesothelioma from his or her exposure depends on that individual's personal susceptibility based 13 See also State v. Phillips, 430 S.C. 319 , 334, 844 S.E.2d 651 , 658 (2020) (referencing the discussion in Council regarding the circuit court's gatekeeping role in determining the admissibility of expert testimony and its "responsibility to ensure the expert testimony meets 2023Dr. Brody also stated that the consensus "among scientists who understand the literature is that all of the asbestos [fiber] varieties . . . cause mesothelioma." Additionally, he explained that whether an individual develops mesothelioma from his or her exposure depends on that individual's personal susceptibility based 13 See also State v. Phillips, 430 S.C. 319 , 334, 844 S.E.2d 651 , 658 (2020) (referencing the discussion in Council regarding the circuit court's gatekeeping role in determining the admissibility of expert testimony and its "responsibility to ensure the expert testimony meets | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Chavis
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 108 , 771 S.E.2d at 339 ; see also White, 382 S.C. at 274, 676 S.E.2d at 688 (“The foundational reliability requirement for expert testimony does not lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach, for the Council factors[ 3 ] for scientific evidence serve no useful analytical purpose when evaluating nonscientific expert testimony.”). 2016Id. at 108 , 771 S.E.2d at 339 ; see also White, 382 S.C. at 274, 676 S.E.2d at 688 (“The foundational reliability requirement for expert testimony does not lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach, for the Council factors[ 3 ] for scientific evidence serve no useful analytical purpose when evaluating nonscientific expert testimony.”). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
County of Charleston v. National Advertising Co.
green
2 sentences1992Under the holding of County of Charleston v. Nat’l Advertising Co., 292 S.C. 416 , 357 S.E. (2d) 9 (1987), the court reasoned that the adverse consequences of Council’s error in granting permits to Crowley, Cope and Beckmann should be borne by Council rather than the respondent. 1992Under the holding of County of Charleston v. Nat’l Advertising Co., 292 S.C. 416 , 357 S.E. (2d) 9 (1987), the court reasoned that the adverse consequences of Council’s error in granting permits to Crowley, Cope and Beckmann should be borne by Council rather than the respondent. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Triska v. Department of Health & Environmental Control
green
1 sentence1991Citing Triska v. Dep’t of Health and Environmental Control, 292 *426 S.C. 190, 355 S.E. (2d) 531 (1987), the circuit judge concluded that certification by Council is not a “contested case” and, therefore, not reviewable pursuant to the APA. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.