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.
12 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2026 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. Andersongreen2 sentences2025"The Brady disclosure rule requires the prosecution to provide the defendant with any evidence in the prosecution's possession that may be favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment." State v. Anderson, 407 S.C. 278, 286 , 754 S.E.2d 905, 909 (Ct. App. 2014). 2025"The Brady disclosure rule requires the prosecution to provide the defendant with any evidence in the prosecution's possession that may be favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment." State v. Anderson, 407 S.C. 278, 286 , 754 S.E.2d 905, 909 (Ct. App. 2014). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Kennerlygreen2 sentences2026See State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 452 , 503 S.E.2d 214 , 219‑20 (Ct. App. 1998), aff'd, 337 S.C. 617 , 524 S.E.2d 837 (1999) ("The Brady disclosure rule is grounded in the defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."). 2026See State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 452 , 503 S.E.2d 214 , 219‑20 (Ct. App. 1998), aff'd, 337 S.C. 617 , 524 S.E.2d 837 (1999) ("The Brady disclosure rule is grounded in the defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."). | 3 | 3 |
Hyman v. Stategreen2 sentences2015“The Brady disclosure rule requires the prosecution to provide the defendant with any evidence in the prosecution’s possession that may be favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment.” State v. Anderson, 407 S.C. 278, 286 , 754 S.E.2d 905, 909 (Ct.App.2014) (citing Hyman v. State, 397 S.C. 35, 45 , 723 S.E.2d 375, 380 (2012)). 2015“The Brady disclosure rule requires the prosecution to provide the defendant with any evidence in the prosecution’s possession that may be favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment.” State v. Anderson, 407 S.C. 278, 286 , 754 S.E.2d 905, 909 (Ct.App.2014) (citing Hyman v. State, 397 S.C. 35, 45 , 723 S.E.2d 375, 380 (2012)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kennerlygreen2 sentences2026See State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 452 , 503 S.E.2d 214 , 219‑20 (Ct. App. 1998), aff'd, 337 S.C. 617 , 524 S.E.2d 837 (1999) ("The Brady disclosure rule is grounded in the defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."). 2026See State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 452 , 503 S.E.2d 214 , 219‑20 (Ct. App. 1998), aff'd, 337 S.C. 617 , 524 S.E.2d 837 (1999) ("The Brady disclosure rule is grounded in the defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Von Dohlenred2 sentences2019"Impeachment or exculpatory evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." State v. Von Dohlen , 322 S.C. 234 , 241, 471 S.E.2d 689 , 693 (1996). 2019"Impeachment or exculpatory evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." State v. Von Dohlen , 322 S.C. 234 , 241, 471 S.E.2d 689 , 693 (1996). | 1 | 2 |
Wilder Corp. v. Wilkegreen2 sentences2019See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."). 2019See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2012In Gibson v. State, 334 S.C. 515, 524 , 514 S.E.2d 320, 324 (1999), we held that an applicant “may challenge the voluntary nature of his guilty plea in a PCR action by asserting an alleged Brady violation.” (citation omitted); see, e.g., State v. Hill, 368 S.C. 649, 657 , 630 S.E.2d 274, 279 (2006) (recognizing the Court’s extension of the Brady disclosure rule to guilty plea and sentencing procedures). 2012In Gibson v. State, 334 S.C. 515, 524 , 514 S.E.2d 320, 324 (1999), we held that an applicant “may challenge the voluntary nature of his guilty plea in a PCR action by asserting an alleged Brady violation.” (citation omitted); see, e.g., State v. Hill, 368 S.C. 649, 657 , 630 S.E.2d 274, 279 (2006) (recognizing the Court’s extension of the Brady disclosure rule to guilty plea and sentencing procedures). | 1 | 1 |
Porter v. Statered2 sentences2012“The Brady disclosure rule requires the prosecution to provide to the defendant any evidence in the prosecution’s possession that may be favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment.” Porter v. State, 368 S.C. 378, 384 , 629 S.E.2d 353, 356 (2006) (citation omitted). 2012“The Brady disclosure rule requires the prosecution to provide to the defendant any evidence in the prosecution’s possession that may be favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment.” Porter v. State, 368 S.C. 378, 384 , 629 S.E.2d 353, 356 (2006) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Gibson v. Stategreen2 sentences2012In Gibson v. State, 334 S.C. 515, 524 , 514 S.E.2d 320, 324 (1999), we held that an applicant “may challenge the voluntary nature of his guilty plea in a PCR action by asserting an alleged Brady violation.” (citation omitted); see, e.g., State v. Hill, 368 S.C. 649, 657 , 630 S.E.2d 274, 279 (2006) (recognizing the Court’s extension of the Brady disclosure rule to guilty plea and sentencing procedures). 2012In Gibson v. State, 334 S.C. 515, 524 , 514 S.E.2d 320, 324 (1999), we held that an applicant “may challenge the voluntary nature of his guilty plea in a PCR action by asserting an alleged Brady violation.” (citation omitted); see, e.g., State v. Hill, 368 S.C. 649, 657 , 630 S.E.2d 274, 279 (2006) (recognizing the Court’s extension of the Brady disclosure rule to guilty plea and sentencing procedures). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2006State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 452 , 503 S.E.2d 214, 220 (Ct.App.1998) (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)). 2006State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 452 , 503 S.E.2d 214, 220 (Ct.App.1998) (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2004In the performance of his duties of probation, parole, community supervision, and investigation, he is regarded as the official representative of the court, the department, and the board.”); cf. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 480 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 (“Supervision [in a parole case] is not directly by the court but by an administrative agency, which is sometimes an arm of the court and sometimes of the executive.”). 2004In the performance of his duties of probation, parole, community supervision, and investigation, he is regarded as the official representative of the court, the department, and the board.”); cf. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 480 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 (“Supervision [in a parole case] is not directly by the court but by an administrative agency, which is sometimes an arm of the court and sometimes of the executive.”). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.