deference bar in South Carolina

2022"However, this deference does not bar this Court from conducting its own review of the record to determine whether the trial judge's decision is supported by the evidence." Id. (quoting State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 521 , 698 S.E.2d 203, 205 (2010)).

2022"However, this deference does not bar this Court from conducting its own review of the record to determine whether the trial judge's decision is supported by the evidence." Id. (quoting State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 521 , 698 S.E.2d 203, 205 (2010)).

2014In this State, the doctrine can be traced back to Read Phosphate Co. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 169 S.C. 314 , 168 S.E. 722 (1933), where this Court adopted the deference doctrine from United States Supreme Court precedent, stating: “The construction given to a statute by those charged with the duty of exercising it is always entitled to the most respectful consideration, and ought not to be overruled without cogent reasons.’ ” *34 Id. at 330 , 168 S.E. at 728 (quoting United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 763 , 5 Otto 760 , 24 L.Ed. 588 (1877)).

2014In this State, the doctrine can be traced back to Read Phosphate Co. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 169 S.C. 314 , 168 S.E. 722 (1933), where this Court adopted the deference doctrine from United States Supreme Court precedent, stating: “The construction given to a statute by those charged with the duty of exercising it is always entitled to the most respectful consideration, and ought not to be overruled without cogent reasons.’ ” *34 Id. at 330 , 168 S.E. at 728 (quoting United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 763 , 5 Otto 760 , 24 L.Ed. 588 (1877)).

2022Our review of the Appellate Panel's order—in conjunction with the medical records, deposition transcripts, live testimony, and submitted expert opinions—convinces us that substantial evidence does not support the Appellate Panel's findings, most notably, its statement that "[n]o opinion of any doctor who actually treated Causey supports a finding that Causey sustained any injury due to his alleged smoke exposure." King v. Int'l Knife & Saw-Florence, 395 S.C. 437, 443 , 718 S.E.2d 227, 230 (Ct. App. 2011) (finding substantial evidence did not support the Appellate Panel's findings where it misc

2022Our review of the Appellate Panel's order—in conjunction with the medical records, deposition transcripts, live testimony, and submitted expert opinions—convinces us that substantial evidence does not support the Appellate Panel's findings, most notably, its statement that "[n]o opinion of any doctor who actually treated Causey supports a finding that Causey sustained any injury due to his alleged smoke exposure." King v. Int'l Knife & Saw-Florence, 395 S.C. 437, 443 , 718 S.E.2d 227, 230 (Ct. App. 2011) (finding substantial evidence did not support the Appellate Panel's findings where it misc

2020"However, this deference does not bar this [c]ourt from conducting its own review of the record to determine whether the trial [court]'s decision is supported by the evidence." Tindall, 388 S.C. at 521, 698 S.E.2d at 205.

2020"On appeal, the conclusion of the trial [court] on issues of fact as to the voluntariness of a confession will not be disturbed unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion." State v. Rochester, 301 S.C. 196, 200 , 391 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1990).

2020"On appeal, the conclusion of the trial [court] on issues of fact as to the voluntariness of a confession will not be disturbed unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion." State v. Rochester, 301 S.C. 196, 200 , 391 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1990).