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.
13 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1906–2024 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. Grady William Powersgreen1 sentence2024Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1266 (9th Cir. 2000)); see also Berthiaume v. Caron, 142 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 1998) ("[The PPG] is widely used in the scientific community for the treatment of pedophilia; its use for screening is debatable and the scientific community is not of one mind . . . ."); United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1471 (4th Cir. 1995) (affirming the district court's ruling that the PPG test fails the "scientific validity" prong of the test which provides the standard for the admissibility of such scientific evidence); Leftwich v. State, 538 S.E.2d 779, 781 (Ga. Ct | 1 | 1 |
Leftwich v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1266 (9th Cir. 2000)); see also Berthiaume v. Caron, 142 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 1998) ("[The PPG] is widely used in the scientific community for the treatment of pedophilia; its use for screening is debatable and the scientific community is not of one mind . . . ."); United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1471 (4th Cir. 1995) (affirming the district court's ruling that the PPG test fails the "scientific validity" prong of the test which provides the standard for the admissibility of such scientific evidence); Leftwich v. State, 538 S.E.2d 779, 781 (Ga. Ct | 1 | 1 |
Norman L. Berthiaume v. Jean Caron, Betty B. Clark, James D. Bivins and William T. O'DOnOhuegreen1 sentence2024Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1266 (9th Cir. 2000)); see also Berthiaume v. Caron, 142 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 1998) ("[The PPG] is widely used in the scientific community for the treatment of pedophilia; its use for screening is debatable and the scientific community is not of one mind . . . ."); United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1471 (4th Cir. 1995) (affirming the district court's ruling that the PPG test fails the "scientific validity" prong of the test which provides the standard for the admissibility of such scientific evidence); Leftwich v. State, 538 S.E.2d 779, 781 (Ga. Ct | 1 | 1 |
Jane Doe, a Minor, by and Through Her Guardian and Mother, Alisa Rudy-Glanzer v. Elroy \Bud\" Glazergreen1 sentence2024Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1266 (9th Cir. 2000)); see also Berthiaume v. Caron, 142 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 1998) ("[The PPG] is widely used in the scientific community for the treatment of pedophilia; its use for screening is debatable and the scientific community is not of one mind . . . ."); United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1471 (4th Cir. 1995) (affirming the district court's ruling that the PPG test fails the "scientific validity" prong of the test which provides the standard for the admissibility of such scientific evidence); Leftwich v. State, 538 S.E.2d 779, 781 (Ga. Ct | 1 | 1 |
State v. Spencergreen1 sentence2024Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1266 (9th Cir. 2000)); see also Berthiaume v. Caron, 142 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 1998) ("[The PPG] is widely used in the scientific community for the treatment of pedophilia; its use for screening is debatable and the scientific community is not of one mind . . . ."); United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1471 (4th Cir. 1995) (affirming the district court's ruling that the PPG test fails the "scientific validity" prong of the test which provides the standard for the admissibility of such scientific evidence); Leftwich v. State, 538 S.E.2d 779, 781 (Ga. Ct | 1 | 1 |
People v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2016Rather, the test is whether the instruction, considered as a whole, was fundamentally prejudicial to the rights of the defendant.”); Clark, 556 N.W.2d at 823 (“Reargument would only be appropriate if it would not prejudice the defendant.”). | 1 | 1 |
Rogers Ex Rel. Rogers v. Florence Printing Co.green1 sentence1985The test for this standard of conduct “is whether [the trespass or conversion] has been committed in such a manner or under such circumstances that [an ordinary person] would ... have been conscious of it as an invasion of [another’s] rights.” Rogers v. Florence Printing Co., 233 S. C. 567, 106 S. E. (2d) 258, 263 (1958). *343 Affirmed. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brabham v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
green
2 sentences1947(This case was again before the Court in 42 Wash. 50 , 84 P. 407 .) In Brabham v. Americcm Telephone & Telegraph Co., 71 S. C. 53, 50 S. E. 716, 717 , it is said: “In determing who are fellow servants, the test or rule in this state is not whether the servants are of different grade, rank, or authority, one of them having power to control and direct the services of another, but the test is in the character of the act being performed by the offending servant, whether it was the performance of some duty the master owed to the injured servant, the performance of which duty the master has entruste 1934True, as it is stated by the defendants in their argument, the recognized principles in this jurisdiction as to fellow servants are those which are so well stated by Mr. Justice Jones, in the case of Brabham v. Telephone & Telegraph Company, 71 S. C., 53, 50 S. E., 716, 717 , as follows: “In determining who are fellow servants, the test or rule in this State is not whether the servants are of different grade, rank, or authority, one of them having power to control and direct the services of another, but the test is in the character of the act being performed by the offending servant, whether i | 7 | 1906–1947 |
Hearn v. Rhay
green
2 sentences2014The Privilege Order was largely predicated on the circuit court’s determination that appellants had waived their attorney-client privilege, applying the test for waiver derived from Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D.Wash.1975). 2014The Privilege Order was largely predicated on the circuit court's determination that appellants had waived their attorney-client privilege, applying the test for waiver derived from Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Wesley v. Holly Hill Lumber Co.
green
1 sentence1959In the late, well-considered case of Wesley v. Holly Hill Lumber Co., 211 S. C. 40, 43 S. E. (2d) 619 , it was pointed out that the tendency of the recent decisions of this court, in line generally with those elsewhere, tend to modify the formerly rigid fellow servant rule as applied in some of the earlier cases. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Conine v. Olympia Logging Co.
neutral
2 sentences1947(This case was again before the Court in 42 Wash. 50 , 84 P. 407 .) In Brabham v. Americcm Telephone & Telegraph Co., 71 S. C. 53, 50 S. E. 716, 717 , it is said: “In determing who are fellow servants, the test or rule in this state is not whether the servants are of different grade, rank, or authority, one of them having power to control and direct the services of another, but the test is in the character of the act being performed by the offending servant, whether it was the performance of some duty the master owed to the injured servant, the performance of which duty the master has entruste 1947(This case was again before the Court in 42 Wash. 50 , 84 P. 407 .) In Brabham v. Americcm Telephone & Telegraph Co., 71 S. C. 53, 50 S. E. 716, 717 , it is said: “In determing who are fellow servants, the test or rule in this state is not whether the servants are of different grade, rank, or authority, one of them having power to control and direct the services of another, but the test is in the character of the act being performed by the offending servant, whether it was the performance of some duty the master owed to the injured servant, the performance of which duty the master has entruste | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Rippy v. Southern Ry.
green
1 sentence1940It is for the court to define the relation of fellow servants, but it is for the jury to determine whether the employees in a particular case come within the definition.” Rippy v. Southern Railway, 80 S. C., 539, 546, 61 S. E., 1010, 1012 , 21 L. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Price v. American Agricultural Chemical Co.
neutral
1 sentence1940In Price v. American Agricultural Chemical Company et al., 173 S. C., 518, 176 S. E., 352, 355 , the clear language of this Court indicates who are fellow *224 servants: “In determining who are fellow servants, the test or rule in this state is not whether the servants are of different grade, rank, or authority, one of them having power to control and direct the services of another, but the test is in the character of the act being performed by the offending servant, whether it was the performance of some duty the master owed to the injured servant, the performance of which duty the master had | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Martin v. Royster Guano Co.
green
1 sentence1907Co., 71 S. C., 56, 50 S. E., 716 , and is quoted and approved in Martin v. Royster Guano Co., 72 S. C., 237, 243, 51 S. E., 680 : “In determining who are fellow-servants, the test or rule in this State is not whether the servants are of different grade, rank or authority, one of them having the power to control and direct the services of the other, but the test is in the character of the act being performed by the offending servant, whether it was the performance of some duty the master owed to the injured servant, the performance of which duty the master had entrusted to the offending servant | 1 | 1907–1907 |
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.