circumstances test in South Carolina

10 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2024 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.

Followed or applied (15)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Myersgreen sc · 2004 · cited in 3 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2008 2 sentences 2008See also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (applying totality of the circumstances test to determine confession’s voluntariness); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was ‘given voluntarily requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” (quoting Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. at 243 , 471 S.E.2d at 694-95 )); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139 , 352 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1987) (“The test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and 2008See also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (applying totality of the circumstances test to determine confession’s voluntariness); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was ‘given voluntarily requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” (quoting Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. at 243 , 471 S.E.2d at 694-95 )); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139 , 352 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1987) (“The test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and	3	3
State v. Alekseygreen sc · 2000 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2007 2 sentences 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was	2	2
State v. Ledfordgreen scctapp · 2002 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2007 2 sentences 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was	2	2
State v. Franklingreen sc · 1989 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2007 2 sentences 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was	2	2
State v. Comptongreen scctapp · 2005 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2007 2 sentences 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was	2	2
State v. Childsgreen sc · 1989 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2007 2 sentences 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was	2	2
State v. Cornsgreen scctapp · 1992 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2007 2 sentences 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was	2	2
State v. Gilliangreen scctapp · 2004 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2007 2 sentences 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was	2	2
State v. Linnengreen sc · 1982 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2007 2 sentences 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was	2	2
State v. McDermottgreen nh · 1989 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024See id. at 319 (observing that, for most promises or threats, the court examines the totality of the circumstances to determine if a defendant's will was overborne, but "[t]he totality of the circumstances test . . . does not apply to promises of confidentiality or promises of immunity from prosecution" (citing State v. McDermott, 554 A.2d 1302 (N.H. 1989))).	1	1
State v. Parkergreen nh · 2010 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024See id. at 319 (observing that, for most promises or threats, the court examines the totality of the circumstances to determine if a defendant's will was overborne, but "[t]he totality of the circumstances test . . . does not apply to promises of confidentiality or promises of immunity from prosecution" (citing State v. McDermott, 554 A.2d 1302 (N.H. 1989))).	1	1
State v. Taylorgreen sc · 2013 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013As explained by the majority, trial courts employ a “totality of the circumstances analysis” and “must give due weight to common sense judgments reached by officers in light of their experience and training.” State v. Taylor, 401 S.C. 104, 112-13 , 736 S.E.2d 663, 667 (2013). 2013As explained by the majority, trial courts employ a “totality of the circumstances analysis” and “must give due weight to common sense judgments reached by officers in light of their experience and training.” State v. Taylor, 401 S.C. 104, 112-13 , 736 S.E.2d 663, 667 (2013).	1	1
State v. Peakegreen sc · 1987 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (applying totality of the circumstances test to determine confession’s voluntariness); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was ‘given voluntarily requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” (quoting Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. at 243 , 471 S.E.2d at 694-95 )); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139 , 352 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1987) (“The test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and 2008See also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (applying totality of the circumstances test to determine confession’s voluntariness); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was ‘given voluntarily requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” (quoting Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. at 243 , 471 S.E.2d at 694-95 )); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139 , 352 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1987) (“The test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and	1	1
Arizona v. Fulminantegreen scotus · 1991 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (applying totality of the circumstances test to determine confession’s voluntariness); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was ‘given voluntarily requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” (quoting Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. at 243 , 471 S.E.2d at 694-95 )); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139 , 352 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1987) (“The test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and 2008See also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (applying totality of the circumstances test to determine confession’s voluntariness); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was ‘given voluntarily requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” (quoting Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. at 243 , 471 S.E.2d at 694-95 )); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139 , 352 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1987) (“The test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and	1	1
State v. Arrowoodgreen scctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (applying totality of the circumstances test to determine confession’s voluntariness); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was ‘given voluntarily requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” (quoting Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. at 243 , 471 S.E.2d at 694-95 )); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139 , 352 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1987) (“The test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and 2008See also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (applying totality of the circumstances test to determine confession’s voluntariness); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was ‘given voluntarily requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” (quoting Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. at 243 , 471 S.E.2d at 694-95 )); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139 , 352 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1987) (“The test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Dickerson v. United States red scotus · 2000 2 sentences 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was 2007The due process test takes into consideration ‘the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179 , 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was	2	2006–2007
Bass v. GOPAL, INC. green sc · 2011 1 sentence 2014Id. at 135-39, 716 S.E.2d at 913-15 .	1	2014–2014
State v. Rabon green sc · 1980 2 sentences 2008See also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (applying totality of the circumstances test to determine confession’s voluntariness); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was ‘given voluntarily requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” (quoting Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. at 243 , 471 S.E.2d at 694-95 )); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139 , 352 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1987) (“The test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and 2008See also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (applying totality of the circumstances test to determine confession’s voluntariness); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was ‘given voluntarily requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” (quoting Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. at 243 , 471 S.E.2d at 694-95 )); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139 , 352 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1987) (“The test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and	1	2008–2008
State v. Von Dohlen green sc · 1996 2 sentences 2008See also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (applying totality of the circumstances test to determine confession’s voluntariness); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was ‘given voluntarily requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” (quoting Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. at 243 , 471 S.E.2d at 694-95 )); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139 , 352 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1987) (“The test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and 2008See also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (applying totality of the circumstances test to determine confession’s voluntariness); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (“A determination whether a statement was ‘given voluntarily requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” (quoting Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. at 243 , 471 S.E.2d at 694-95 )); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139 , 352 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1987) (“The test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and	1	2008–2008
Fare v. Michael C. green scotus · 1979 2 sentences 2008In Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979), the United States Supreme Court held a juvenile’s request for his probation officer was a not per se invocation of his Miranda rights. 2008In Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979), the United States Supreme Court held a juvenile’s request for his probation officer was a not per se invocation of his Miranda rights.	1	2008–2008
State v. Amerson green sc · 1993 2 sentences 1995Finally, in State v. Amerson, 311 S.C. 316 , 428 S.E. (2d) 871 (1993), filed the same day as State v. Wilson, 311 S.C. 382 , 429 S.E. (2d) 543 (1993), our Supreme Court set forth a multi-pronged flexible totality of the circumstances test for determining whether two conspiracies or merely one occurred for the purpose of ascertaining whether double jeopardy bars a subsequent prosecution. 1995Finally, in State v. Amerson, 311 S.C. 316 , 428 S.E. (2d) 871 (1993), filed the same day as State v. Wilson, 311 S.C. 382 , 429 S.E. (2d) 543 (1993), our Supreme Court set forth a multi-pronged flexible totality of the circumstances test for determining whether two conspiracies or merely one occurred for the purpose of ascertaining whether double jeopardy bars a subsequent prosecution.	1	1995–1995
State v. Wilson green sc · 1993 1 sentence 1995Finally, in State v. Amerson, 311 S.C. 316 , 428 S.E. (2d) 871 (1993), filed the same day as State v. Wilson, 311 S.C. 382 , 429 S.E. (2d) 543 (1993), our Supreme Court set forth a multi-pronged flexible totality of the circumstances test for determining whether two conspiracies or merely one occurred for the purpose of ascertaining whether double jeopardy bars a subsequent prosecution.	1	1995–1995
Illinois v. Gates green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 1989In adopting the “totality of the circumstances test” for probable cause determinations, the United States Supreme Court stated: The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. 406 Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 238 , 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 , 76 L. 1989In adopting the “totality of the circumstances test” for probable cause determinations, the United States Supreme Court stated: The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. 406 Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 238 , 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 , 76 L.	1	1989–1989
Owens v. Ocean Forest Club, Inc. green · 1941 1 sentence 1967Owens v. Ocean Forest Club, 196 S. C. 97, 12 S. E. (2d) 839 ; Buff v. Columbia Baking Co., 215 S. C. 41, 53 S. E. (2d) 879 .	1	1967–1967
Buff v. Columbia Baking Co. neutral sc · 1949 1 sentence 1967Owens v. Ocean Forest Club, 196 S. C. 97, 12 S. E. (2d) 839 ; Buff v. Columbia Baking Co., 215 S. C. 41, 53 S. E. (2d) 879 .	1	1967–1967
McLeod v. American Publishing Co. green sc · 1923 1 sentence 1925In McLeod v. American Publishing Co., 126 S. C. on page 366; 120 S. E., 70 ; 71 we find: “ ‘The cause and manner of speaking the slander are in all cases proper to be given in evidence in order to guide the jury in the assessment of damages, * * * and all the circumstances of hearing the slander first published and the manner of repeating it ought to be duly considered by the jury in mitigation or in aggravating the damages, Easterwood v. Quin, 2 Brev. p. 64; 3 Am.	1	1925–1925

Where else courts name it

NY 214 (1885–2025) CA 182 (1900–2026) PA 125 (1903–2026) IL 121 (1856–2026) TX 115 (1908–2025) OH 76 (1902–2025) FL 62 (1933–2020) NJ 61 (1949–2026) WI 60 (1915–2026) MD 52 (1964–2025) MA 49 (1917–2020) VA 43 (1877–2023) NC 42 (1924–2026) GA 42 (1905–2025) LA 41 (1965–2020) TN 40 (1918–2026) MO 39 (1897–2021) IN 33 (1925–2020) CO 32 (1945–2026) AL 30 (1926–2024) WA 29 (1960–2026) MT 28 (1912–2020) OR 28 (1959–2026) NE 28 (1932–2026) MI 27 (1921–2026) CT 27 (1978–2026) WY 26 (1934–2026) KY 26 (1916–2023) MN 26 (1949–2024) KS 26 (1926–2025) AZ 26 (1963–2022) VT 26 (1913–2026) NM 22 (1990–2023) SD 18 (1940–2024) MS 16 (1921–2020) HI 16 (1925–2021) DC 16 (1973–2024) IA 16 (1915–2023) ND 13 (1974–2012) ID 12 (1925–2024) DE 12 (1977–2026) NV 11 (1948–2026) AR 11 (1956–2001) ME 11 (1965–2022) UT 11 (1985–2024) SC 10 (1925–2024) OK 9 (1910–2021) WV 8 (1940–2026) NH 8 (1973–2021) AK 7 (1976–1996) RI 6 (1971–2012) VI 3 (2006–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check