12 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2015 0 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. Turnergreen2 sentences2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification."); id. (stating the first pro 2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification."); id. (stating the first pro | 3 | 3 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification."); id. (stating the first pro 2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification."); id. (stating the first pro | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bandagreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Banda, 371 S.C. 245, 251 , 639 S.E.2d 36, 39 (2006) (stating that in preliminary evidentiary matters, appellate court review is limited to reviewing whether the trial court’s factual findings are supported by any evidence in the record). 2015See, e.g., State v. Banda, 371 S.C. 245, 251 , 639 S.E.2d 36, 39 (2006) (stating that in preliminary evidentiary matters, appellate court review is limited to reviewing whether the trial court’s factual findings are supported by any evidence in the record). | 2 | 2 |
Gibbs v. Stategreen2 sentences2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification."); id. (stating the first pro 2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification."); id. (stating the first pro | 2 | 2 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification."); id. (stating the first pro 2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification."); id. (stating the first pro | 2 | 2 |
State v. Govangreen2 sentences2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification."); id. (stating the first pro 2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification."); id. (stating the first pro | 2 | 2 |
Hardee v. Hardeegreen2 sentences2014See Hardee, 355 S.C. at 389-90 , 585 S.E.2d at 504 (explaining the first prong of the test is whether a prenuptial agreement was obtained through fraud, duress, mistake, or through misrepresentation or nondisclosure of material facts). 2014See Hardee, 355 S.C. at 389-90 , 585 S.E.2d at 504 (explaining the first prong of the test is whether a prenuptial agreement was obtained through fraud, duress, mistake, or through misrepresentation or nondisclosure of material facts). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gambrellgreen2 sentences2013PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("A criminal defendant may be deprived of due process of law by an identification procedure which is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification."); id. ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification." (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972))); id. (stating the first prong of the inquiry is "whether the identification process 2013PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("A criminal defendant may be deprived of due process of law by an identification procedure which is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification."); id. ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification." (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972))); id. (stating the first prong of the inquiry is "whether the identification process | 1 | 1 |
Jefferson v. Stategreen2 sentences2013PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("A criminal defendant may be deprived of due process of law by an identification procedure which is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification."); id. ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification." (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972))); id. (stating the first prong of the inquiry is "whether the identification process 2013PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("A criminal defendant may be deprived of due process of law by an identification procedure which is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification."); id. ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification." (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972))); id. (stating the first prong of the inquiry is "whether the identification process | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Bennett v. State, 371 S.C. 198, 203 , 638 S.E.2d 673, 675 (2006) (citing Strickland). *298 The second part of the test requires a defendant to show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 2007Bennett v. State, 371 S.C. 198, 203 , 638 S.E.2d 673, 675 (2006) (citing Strickland). *298 The second part of the test requires a defendant to show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Neil v. Biggers
green
2 sentences2013PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("A criminal defendant may be deprived of due process of law by an identification procedure which is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification."); id. ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification." (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972))); id. (stating the first prong of the inquiry is "whether the identification process 2013PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("A criminal defendant may be deprived of due process of law by an identification procedure which is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification."); id. ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification." (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972))); id. (stating the first prong of the inquiry is "whether the identification process | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Alexander v. State, 303 S.C. 539 , 402 S.E.2d 484 (1991). 2006Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Alexander v. State, 303 S.C. 539 , 402 S.E.2d 484 (1991). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Alexander v. State
green
2 sentences2006Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Alexander v. State, 303 S.C. 539 , 402 S.E.2d 484 (1991). 2006Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Alexander v. State, 303 S.C. 539 , 402 S.E.2d 484 (1991). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. Richard Ralston Catlett
green
2 sentences2000In United States v. Catlett, 584 F.2d 864 (8th Cir.1978), cited by appellant, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held the district court properly denied discovery on a selective prosecution claim when the defendant was unable to produce “some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense and that the documents in the government’s possession would indeed be probative of these elements.” Id. at 865 . 2000In United States v. Catlett, 584 F.2d 864 (8th Cir.1978), cited by appellant, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held the district court properly denied discovery on a selective prosecution claim when the defendant was unable to produce “some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense and that the documents in the government’s possession would indeed be probative of these elements.” Id. at 865 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. Howser
green
1 sentence1998Id. at 273 , 422 S.E.2d at 108 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
MULTIMEDIA PUB. OF SC v. Mullins
green
2 sentences1996Sturkie, 280 S.C. 453 , 313 S.E. (2d) 316 ; Multimedia Publishing of South Carolina, Inc. v. Mullins, 314 S.C. 551 , 431 S.E. (2d) 569 (1993); Cumberland Wood Products v. Bennett, 308 S.C. 268 , 417 S.E. (2d) 617 (Ct. App. 1992); C.T. 1996Sturkie, 280 S.C. 453 , 313 S.E.2d 316 ; Multimedia Publishing of South Carolina, Inc. v. Mullins, 314 S.C. 551 , 431 S.E.2d 569 (1993); Cumberland Wood Products v. Bennett, 308 S.C. 268 , 417 S.E.2d 617 (Ct.App.1992); C.T. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Multimedia Publishing of South Carolina, Inc. v. Mullins
green
2 sentences1996Sturkie, 280 S.C. 453 , 313 S.E. (2d) 316 ; Multimedia Publishing of South Carolina, Inc. v. Mullins, 314 S.C. 551 , 431 S.E. (2d) 569 (1993); Cumberland Wood Products v. Bennett, 308 S.C. 268 , 417 S.E. (2d) 617 (Ct. App. 1992); C.T. 1996Sturkie, 280 S.C. 453 , 313 S.E.2d 316 ; Multimedia Publishing of South Carolina, Inc. v. Mullins, 314 S.C. 551 , 431 S.E.2d 569 (1993); Cumberland Wood Products v. Bennett, 308 S.C. 268 , 417 S.E.2d 617 (Ct.App.1992); C.T. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Cumberland Wood Products, Inc. v. Bennett
green
2 sentences1996Sturkie, 280 S.C. 453 , 313 S.E.2d 316 ; Multimedia Publishing of South Carolina, Inc. v. Mullins, 314 S.C. 551 , 431 S.E.2d 569 (1993); Cumberland Wood Products v. Bennett, 308 S.C. 268 , 417 S.E.2d 617 (Ct.App.1992); C.T. 1996Sturkie, 280 S.C. 453 , 313 S.E.2d 316 ; Multimedia Publishing of South Carolina, Inc. v. Mullins, 314 S.C. 551 , 431 S.E.2d 569 (1993); Cumberland Wood Products v. Bennett, 308 S.C. 268 , 417 S.E.2d 617 (Ct.App.1992); C.T. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Sturkie v. Sifly
green
2 sentences1996Sturkie, 280 S.C. 453 , 313 S.E.2d 316 ; Multimedia Publishing of South Carolina, Inc. v. Mullins, 314 S.C. 551 , 431 S.E.2d 569 (1993); Cumberland Wood Products v. Bennett, 308 S.C. 268 , 417 S.E.2d 617 (Ct.App.1992); C.T. 1996Sturkie, 280 S.C. 453 , 313 S.E.2d 316 ; Multimedia Publishing of South Carolina, Inc. v. Mullins, 314 S.C. 551 , 431 S.E.2d 569 (1993); Cumberland Wood Products v. Bennett, 308 S.C. 268 , 417 S.E.2d 617 (Ct.App.1992); C.T. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Cherry v. State
green
2 sentences1992Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115 , 386 S.E. (2d) 624 (1989). 1992Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115 , 386 S.E. (2d) 624 (1989). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.