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 1978–2014 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. Huntleygreen2 sentences2014See State v. Huntley, 349 S.C. 1, 5 , 562 S.E.2d 472, 474 (2002) (“The purpose of a simulator test is to ensure the breathalyzer machine produces an accurate, reliable breath-alcohol reading, and ultimately, an accurate blood-alcohol analysis.”). 2014See State v. Huntley, 349 S.C. 1, 5 , 562 S.E.2d 472, 474 (2002) (“The purpose of a simulator test is to ensure the breathalyzer machine produces an accurate, reliable breath-alcohol reading, and ultimately, an accurate blood-alcohol analysis.”). | 5 | 7 |
Worsley Companies, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Controlgreen2 sentences2004Control , 351 S.C. 97, 103 , 567 S.E.2d 907, 910 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding issue presented on appeal was not preserved for review where appellant failed to raise the argument at the trial level). 2004Control , 351 S.C. 97, 103 , 567 S.E.2d 907, 910 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding issue presented on appeal was not preserved for review where appellant failed to raise the argument at the trial level). | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Mooregreen2 sentences2004Code Ann. § 56-5-2953 (A) (Supp. 2003) (allowing any party to the action to admit incident site or breath test site videotapes); Cooper v. Moore , 351 S.C. 207, 212 , 569 S.E.2d 330, 332 (2002) (holding that when the terms of a statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning); State v. Huntley , 349 S.C. 1, 6 , 562 S.E.2d 472, 474 (2002) (holding breathalyzer results were admissible absent a showing by the defendant of prejudice resulting from the use of the wrong concentration, because “[e]vidence the simulator test was not run in conformity with Act 434 2004Code Ann. § 56-5-2953 (A) (Supp. 2003) (allowing any party to the action to admit incident site or breath test site videotapes); Cooper v. Moore , 351 S.C. 207, 212 , 569 S.E.2d 330, 332 (2002) (holding that when the terms of a statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning); State v. Huntley , 349 S.C. 1, 6 , 562 S.E.2d 472, 474 (2002) (holding breathalyzer results were admissible absent a showing by the defendant of prejudice resulting from the use of the wrong concentration, because “[e]vidence the simulator test was not run in conformity with Act 434 | 1 | 1 |
Rowe v. Hyattgreen2 sentences2004Code Ann. § 56-5-2953 (A) (Supp. 2003) (allowing any party to the action to admit incident site or breath test site videotapes); Cooper v. Moore , 351 S.C. 207, 212 , 569 S.E.2d 330, 332 (2002) (holding that when the terms of a statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning); State v. Huntley , 349 S.C. 1, 6 , 562 S.E.2d 472, 474 (2002) (holding breathalyzer results were admissible absent a showing by the defendant of prejudice resulting from the use of the wrong concentration, because “[e]vidence the simulator test was not run in conformity with Act 434 2004Code Ann. § 56-5-2953 (A) (Supp. 2003) (allowing any party to the action to admit incident site or breath test site videotapes); Cooper v. Moore , 351 S.C. 207, 212 , 569 S.E.2d 330, 332 (2002) (holding that when the terms of a statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning); State v. Huntley , 349 S.C. 1, 6 , 562 S.E.2d 472, 474 (2002) (holding breathalyzer results were admissible absent a showing by the defendant of prejudice resulting from the use of the wrong concentration, because “[e]vidence the simulator test was not run in conformity with Act 434 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Parker
green
2 sentences1980SLED regulation 73-2, as set forth in the South Carolina Code (1976), provides that the approved method of operating a breathalyzer shall be “as set forth in the manufacturer’s instructional manual and in accordance with any supplementary written instructions governing operation or maintenance issued by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.” (Emphasis added.) Appellant’s assertion that the lower court erred in admitting the breathalyzer test results despite the lack of evidence on the part of the State that the chemicals used in *294 either the simulator or test ampoules were the correc 1980State v. Parker, supra. In order to overcome this prima jade showing, it is necessary that appellant demonstrate that a 0.10 percent standard test reading is reasonably possible even though the ampoule chemical composition is in error or that the machine can malfunction without such being detected through the simulator test. | 2 | 1980–1998 |
State v. Breech
green
2 sentences2002State v. Breech, 308 S.C. 356 , 417 S.E.2d 873 (1992)(DUI statute strictly construed in favor of defendant). 2002State v. Breech, 308 S.C. 356 , 417 S.E.2d 873 (1992)(DUI statute strictly construed in favor of defendant). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
In re Suspension of License to Operate a Motor Vehicle of Rogers
green
1 sentence1990App. 505 , 380 S.E. (2d) 599 (1989) (the failure of a breathalyzer operator to perform a simulator test in the presence of a witness requested by the driver did not preclude revocation of license for refusal to take the test). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Baker
green
1 sentence1978We recommend the reading of State v. Baker, 56 Wash. (2d) 846, 355 P. (2d) 806 (1960), and follow with approval the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. 2 Prior to admitting such evidence, the State may be required to prove (1) that the machine was in proper working order at the time of the test; (2) that the correct chemicals had been used; (3) that the accused was not allowed to put anything in his mouth for 20 minutes prior to the test, 3 and (4) that the test was administered by a qualified person in the proper manner. 4 The testimony of the operator that | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.