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 1952–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hensley v. Eckerhartgreen1 sentence2025And though looking at the hours expended multiplied by the attorney's rate may be a "useful starting point," Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983), that number is only part of the analysis, not the end of the analysis. | 1 | 1 |
Gregg v. Georgiagreen1 sentence2022See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 605 (1978) (noting "that the imposition of death by public authority is so profoundly different from all other penalties . . . ."); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 187 (1976) ("When a defendant's life is at stake, the Court has been particularly sensitive to insure that every safeguard is observed."). | 1 | 1 |
Lockett v. Ohiogreen1 sentence2022See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 605 (1978) (noting "that the imposition of death by public authority is so profoundly different from all other penalties . . . ."); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 187 (1976) ("When a defendant's life is at stake, the Court has been particularly sensitive to insure that every safeguard is observed."). | 1 | 1 |
Salley v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Because the trial court denied Petitioner the right to counsel despite his repeated requests for counsel at the hearing, we reverse the trial court's revocation of Petitioner's probation and remand for a new probation revocation hearing pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991) ("The right to counsel attaches in probation revocation hearings."); Turner v. State, 384 S.C. 451, 454 , 682 S.E.2d 792, 793 (2009) ("However, a probationer does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel."); id. ("Rather, the right t 2021Because the trial court denied Petitioner the right to counsel despite his repeated requests for counsel at the hearing, we reverse the trial court's revocation of Petitioner's probation and remand for a new probation revocation hearing pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991) ("The right to counsel attaches in probation revocation hearings."); Turner v. State, 384 S.C. 451, 454 , 682 S.E.2d 792, 793 (2009) ("However, a probationer does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel."); id. ("Rather, the right t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2021Because the trial court denied Petitioner the right to counsel despite his repeated requests for counsel at the hearing, we reverse the trial court's revocation of Petitioner's probation and remand for a new probation revocation hearing pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991) ("The right to counsel attaches in probation revocation hearings."); Turner v. State, 384 S.C. 451, 454 , 682 S.E.2d 792, 793 (2009) ("However, a probationer does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel."); id. ("Rather, the right t 2021Because the trial court denied Petitioner the right to counsel despite his repeated requests for counsel at the hearing, we reverse the trial court's revocation of Petitioner's probation and remand for a new probation revocation hearing pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991) ("The right to counsel attaches in probation revocation hearings."); Turner v. State, 384 S.C. 451, 454 , 682 S.E.2d 792, 793 (2009) ("However, a probationer does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel."); id. ("Rather, the right t | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Because the trial court denied Petitioner the right to counsel despite his repeated requests for counsel at the hearing, we reverse the trial court's revocation of Petitioner's probation and remand for a new probation revocation hearing pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991) ("The right to counsel attaches in probation revocation hearings."); Turner v. State, 384 S.C. 451, 454 , 682 S.E.2d 792, 793 (2009) ("However, a probationer does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel."); id. ("Rather, the right t 2021Because the trial court denied Petitioner the right to counsel despite his repeated requests for counsel at the hearing, we reverse the trial court's revocation of Petitioner's probation and remand for a new probation revocation hearing pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991) ("The right to counsel attaches in probation revocation hearings."); Turner v. State, 384 S.C. 451, 454 , 682 S.E.2d 792, 793 (2009) ("However, a probationer does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel."); id. ("Rather, the right t | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Dana Jacksongreen1 sentence2017The circuit court immediately responded, “I have it.” In Dunn , the Supreme Court stated “these factors are useful analytical tools only to the degree that, in any given case, they bear upon the centrally relevant consideration— whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home’s ‘umbrella’ of Fourth Amendment protection.” 480 U.S. at 301 , 107 S.Ct. at 1140 , 94 L.Ed.2d at 335 ; see also United States v. Jackson, 728 F.3d 367, 373-74 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating the Supreme Court “cautioned” for the limited use of the Dunn factors). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Noel C. Jenkins (96-5338) Linda L. Jenkins (96-5346)green1 sentence2016Near the end of the hearing, the State cited Dunn and offered 3 See United States v. Jenkins, 124 F.3d 768, 773 (6th Cir. 1997) (finding the defendants using the area "for such things as hanging their wet laundry on a clothesline to dry" was one fact supporting a finding the area was curtilage). 4 See United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 902 (9th Cir. 2001) ("[I]n rural pieces of property . . . , natural boundaries such as thick trees or shrubberies may also indicate an area 'to which the activity of home life extends.'" (citation omitted)). 22 to provide a copy of it to the court. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael Johnsongreen1 sentence2016Near the end of the hearing, the State cited Dunn and offered 3 See United States v. Jenkins, 124 F.3d 768, 773 (6th Cir. 1997) (finding the defendants using the area "for such things as hanging their wet laundry on a clothesline to dry" was one fact supporting a finding the area was curtilage). 4 See United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 902 (9th Cir. 2001) ("[I]n rural pieces of property . . . , natural boundaries such as thick trees or shrubberies may also indicate an area 'to which the activity of home life extends.'" (citation omitted)). 22 to provide a copy of it to the court. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Dunn
green
2 sentences2017The circuit court immediately responded, “I have it.” In Dunn , the Supreme Court stated “these factors are useful analytical tools only to the degree that, in any given case, they bear upon the centrally relevant consideration— whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home’s ‘umbrella’ of Fourth Amendment protection.” 480 U.S. at 301 , 107 S.Ct. at 1140 , 94 L.Ed.2d at 335 ; see also United States v. Jackson, 728 F.3d 367, 373-74 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating the Supreme Court “cautioned” for the limited use of the Dunn factors). 2017The circuit court immediately responded, “I have it.” In Dunn , the Supreme Court stated “these factors are useful analytical tools only to the degree that, in any given case, they bear upon the centrally relevant consideration— whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home’s ‘umbrella’ of Fourth Amendment protection.” 480 U.S. at 301 , 107 S.Ct. at 1140 , 94 L.Ed.2d at 335 ; see also United States v. Jackson, 728 F.3d 367, 373-74 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating the Supreme Court “cautioned” for the limited use of the Dunn factors). | 3 | 2016–2017 |
Layman v. State
green
2 sentences2025As our supreme court has explained, "the overriding benchmark for awards of attorneys' fees . . . is that attorneys' fees must be 'reasonable.'" Layman, 376 S.C. at 455 , 658 S.E.2d at 331 . 2025As our supreme court has explained, "the overriding benchmark for awards of attorneys' fees . . . is that attorneys' fees must be 'reasonable.'" Layman, 376 S.C. at 455 , 658 S.E.2d at 331 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Mangal v. State
green
2 sentences2019Id. 2019Id. at 95 , 805 S.E.2d at 573 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Bagwell v. Ernest Burwell, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015However, it noted that simply concluding the fall was idiopathic was not the end of the inquiry, and that “[i]f, except for the employment, the fall, though due to a cause not related to the employment, would not have carried the consequences it did, then causal connection is established between injury and employment, and the accidental injury arose out of the employment.” Id. at 453 , 88 S.E.2d at 615 . 2015However, it noted that simply concluding the fall was idiopathic was not the end of the inquiry, and that “[i]f, except for the employment, the fall, though due to a cause not related to the employment, would not have carried the consequences it did, then causal connection is established between injury and employment, and the accidental injury arose out of the employment.” Id. at 453 , 88 S.E.2d at 615 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Lyle
green
2 sentences2003Answer: No. At the end of the hearing, defense counsel objected to the statement under State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923) and Rule 404(b), SCRE, on the basis the statement was evidence of other bad acts and that the prejudice of admitting the statement outweighed its probative value. 2003Answer: No. At the end of the hearing, defense counsel objected to the statement under State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923) and Rule 404(b), SCRE, on the basis the statement was evidence of other bad acts and that the prejudice of admitting the statement outweighed its probative value. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Barnett v. Barnett
green
1 sentence1986Barnett v. Barnett, 282 S. C. 343, 318 S. E. (2d) 570 (Ct. App. 1984). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
McCranie v. Davis
neutral
1 sentence1986In his oral order at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge defined such furnishings as including household items such as silver, china, etc. While we are familiar with the rulings set down in McCranie v. Davis, 278 S. C. 513, 299 S. E. (2d) 338 (1983) that a written order clearly contrary to a ruling pronounced at the hearing will be reversed, we hold that the definition ascribed by the trial judge to the word “furniture” at the end of the hearing clearly indicates the connotation of the trial judge of “furniture” as used in the appealed order. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Shannon v. Freeman
green
2 sentences1952That was the holding of this Court in the case of Shannon v. Freeman , 117 S.C. 480 , 109 S.E. 406 . 1952That was the holding of this Court in the case of Shannon v. Freeman , 117 S.C. 480 , 109 S.E. 406 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.