10 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2023 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. Huiettgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Huiett, 271 S.C. 205, 208 , 246 S.E.2d 862, 864 (1978). 2023See State v. Huiett, 271 S.C. 205, 208 , 246 S.E.2d 862, 864 (1978). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2004See White, 246 S.C. at 507 , 144 S.E.2d at 483 (“[i]n view of the absolute discretion of the jury with regard to the issue of mercy, it is impossible to determine whether the argument actually had a prejudicial effect upon the verdict”); State v. McClure, 342 S.C. 403, 409 , 537 S.E.2d 273, 275 (2000) (“We note the evaluation of the consequences of an error in the sentencing phase of a capital case [is] more difficult because of the discretion that is given to the sentencing jury. 2004See White, 246 S.C. at 507 , 144 S.E.2d at 483 (“[i]n view of the absolute discretion of the jury with regard to the issue of mercy, it is impossible to determine whether the argument actually had a prejudicial effect upon the verdict”); State v. McClure, 342 S.C. 403, 409 , 537 S.E.2d 273, 275 (2000) (“We note the evaluation of the consequences of an error in the sentencing phase of a capital case [is] more difficult because of the discretion that is given to the sentencing jury. | 2 | 2 |
State v. McCluregreen2 sentences2010See Von Dohlen v. State, 360 S.C. 598, 613 , 602 S.E.2d 738, 746 (2004) ("It is difficult to determine the precise impact of the solicitor's argument on the jury's deliberation of the sentence, but the potential impact must be carefully and thoroughly evaluated in a capital case."); State v. McClure, 342 S.C. 403, 409 , 537 S.E.2d 273, 275 (2000) ("We note the evaluation of the consequences of an error in the sentencing phase of a capital case [is] more difficult because of the discretion that is given to the sentencing jury. 2010See Von Dohlen v. State, 360 S.C. 598, 613 , 602 S.E.2d 738, 746 (2004) ("It is difficult to determine the precise impact of the solicitor's argument on the jury's deliberation of the sentence, but the potential impact must be carefully and thoroughly evaluated in a capital case."); State v. McClure, 342 S.C. 403, 409 , 537 S.E.2d 273, 275 (2000) ("We note the evaluation of the consequences of an error in the sentencing phase of a capital case [is] more difficult because of the discretion that is given to the sentencing jury. | 2 | 2 |
Faretta v. Californiagreen2 sentences2017To argue otherwise is to confuse the right to counsel of choice—which is the right to a particular lawyer regardless of comparative effectiveness—with the right to effective counsel—which imposes a baseline requirement of competence on whatever lawyer is chosen or appointed.”); Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819-20 , 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2533 , 45 L.Ed. 2d 562, 572-73 (1975) (“The right to defend is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails.... 2017To argue otherwise is to confuse the right to counsel of choice—which is the right to a particular lawyer regardless of comparative effectiveness—with the right to effective counsel—which imposes a baseline requirement of competence on whatever lawyer is chosen or appointed.”); Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819-20 , 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2533 , 45 L.Ed. 2d 562, 572-73 (1975) (“The right to defend is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails.... | 1 | 1 |
Von Dohlen v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Von Dohlen v. State, 360 S.C. 598, 613 , 602 S.E.2d 738, 746 (2004) ("It is difficult to determine the precise impact of the solicitor's argument on the jury's deliberation of the sentence, but the potential impact must be carefully and thoroughly evaluated in a capital case."); State v. McClure, 342 S.C. 403, 409 , 537 S.E.2d 273, 275 (2000) ("We note the evaluation of the consequences of an error in the sentencing phase of a capital case [is] more difficult because of the discretion that is given to the sentencing jury. 2010See Von Dohlen v. State, 360 S.C. 598, 613 , 602 S.E.2d 738, 746 (2004) ("It is difficult to determine the precise impact of the solicitor's argument on the jury's deliberation of the sentence, but the potential impact must be carefully and thoroughly evaluated in a capital case."); State v. McClure, 342 S.C. 403, 409 , 537 S.E.2d 273, 275 (2000) ("We note the evaluation of the consequences of an error in the sentencing phase of a capital case [is] more difficult because of the discretion that is given to the sentencing jury. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences2007In Jackson v. State , 349 S.C. 62, 64 , 562 S.E.2d 475, 475 (2002), our supreme court held the Program serves essentially the same function for persons convicted of no parole offenses as parole does for other inmates. Probation is judicially-imposed at the time of sentencing: whether a violation of probationary terms has occurred, and if so, the consequences of such a violation, are matters for the courts. Duckson v. State , 355 S.C. 596, 598 , 586 S.E.2d 576, 578 (2003). On the other hand, the Board of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services determines both parole eligibility and revoca 2007In Jackson v. State , 349 S.C. 62, 64 , 562 S.E.2d 475, 475 (2002), our supreme court held the Program serves essentially the same function for persons convicted of no parole offenses as parole does for other inmates. Probation is judicially-imposed at the time of sentencing: whether a violation of probationary terms has occurred, and if so, the consequences of such a violation, are matters for the courts. Duckson v. State , 355 S.C. 596, 598 , 586 S.E.2d 576, 578 (2003). On the other hand, the Board of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services determines both parole eligibility and revoca | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leegreen2 sentences2007In Jackson v. State , 349 S.C. 62, 64 , 562 S.E.2d 475, 475 (2002), our supreme court held the Program serves essentially the same function for persons convicted of no parole offenses as parole does for other inmates. Probation is judicially-imposed at the time of sentencing: whether a violation of probationary terms has occurred, and if so, the consequences of such a violation, are matters for the courts. Duckson v. State , 355 S.C. 596, 598 , 586 S.E.2d 576, 578 (2003). On the other hand, the Board of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services determines both parole eligibility and revoca 2007In Jackson v. State , 349 S.C. 62, 64 , 562 S.E.2d 475, 475 (2002), our supreme court held the Program serves essentially the same function for persons convicted of no parole offenses as parole does for other inmates. Probation is judicially-imposed at the time of sentencing: whether a violation of probationary terms has occurred, and if so, the consequences of such a violation, are matters for the courts. Duckson v. State , 355 S.C. 596, 598 , 586 S.E.2d 576, 578 (2003). On the other hand, the Board of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services determines both parole eligibility and revoca | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2007In Jackson v. State , 349 S.C. 62, 64 , 562 S.E.2d 475, 475 (2002), our supreme court held the Program serves essentially the same function for persons convicted of no parole offenses as parole does for other inmates. Probation is judicially-imposed at the time of sentencing: whether a violation of probationary terms has occurred, and if so, the consequences of such a violation, are matters for the courts. Duckson v. State , 355 S.C. 596, 598 , 586 S.E.2d 576, 578 (2003). On the other hand, the Board of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services determines both parole eligibility and revoca 2007In Jackson v. State , 349 S.C. 62, 64 , 562 S.E.2d 475, 475 (2002), our supreme court held the Program serves essentially the same function for persons convicted of no parole offenses as parole does for other inmates. Probation is judicially-imposed at the time of sentencing: whether a violation of probationary terms has occurred, and if so, the consequences of such a violation, are matters for the courts. Duckson v. State , 355 S.C. 596, 598 , 586 S.E.2d 576, 578 (2003). On the other hand, the Board of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services determines both parole eligibility and revoca | 1 | 1 |
Duckson v. Stategreen2 sentences2007In Jackson v. State , 349 S.C. 62, 64 , 562 S.E.2d 475, 475 (2002), our supreme court held the Program serves essentially the same function for persons convicted of no parole offenses as parole does for other inmates. Probation is judicially-imposed at the time of sentencing: whether a violation of probationary terms has occurred, and if so, the consequences of such a violation, are matters for the courts. Duckson v. State , 355 S.C. 596, 598 , 586 S.E.2d 576, 578 (2003). On the other hand, the Board of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services determines both parole eligibility and revoca 2007In Jackson v. State , 349 S.C. 62, 64 , 562 S.E.2d 475, 475 (2002), our supreme court held the Program serves essentially the same function for persons convicted of no parole offenses as parole does for other inmates. Probation is judicially-imposed at the time of sentencing: whether a violation of probationary terms has occurred, and if so, the consequences of such a violation, are matters for the courts. Duckson v. State , 355 S.C. 596, 598 , 586 S.E.2d 576, 578 (2003). On the other hand, the Board of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services determines both parole eligibility and revoca | 1 | 1 |
State v. Crouchgreen2 sentences2003See e.g., State v. Crouch, Op. No. 25698, 585 S.E.2d 288 (S.C.Sup.Ct.2003). 2003See e.g., State v. Crouch, Op. No. 25698, 585 S.E.2d 288 (S.C.Sup.Ct.2003). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of Darlene C.
green
1 sentence1985Finally, the State argues *189 that since Angela has served her sentence, there is no meaningful relief this Court can grant her and under the holding of In the Interest of Darlene C., 278 S. C. 664, 301 S. E. (2d) 136 (1983), this appeal is moot. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Privette v. Garrison
green
1 sentence1966Cf. Privette v. Garrison, 235 S. C. 119, 110 S. E. (2d) 17 , where the equitable doctrine of laches was held applicable as a bar to the assertion of a right by one party to a transaction against those claiming under the other party, then deceased. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Long v. McMILLAN
green
1 sentence1964State v. Nathans, 49 S. C. 199, 27 S. E. 52 ; State v. Highsmith, 105 S. C. 505, 90 S. E. 154 ; Long v. McMillan et al., 226 S. C. 598, 86 S. E. (2d) 477 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
State v. Nathans
green
1 sentence1964State v. Nathans, 49 S. C. 199, 27 S. E. 52 ; State v. Highsmith, 105 S. C. 505, 90 S. E. 154 ; Long v. McMillan et al., 226 S. C. 598, 86 S. E. (2d) 477 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
State v. Highsmith
green
1 sentence1964State v. Nathans, 49 S. C. 199, 27 S. E. 52 ; State v. Highsmith, 105 S. C. 505, 90 S. E. 154 ; Long v. McMillan et al., 226 S. C. 598, 86 S. E. (2d) 477 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.