10 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Scrivengreen2 sentences2019For consistency, we will refer to this prior conviction as a strong arm robbery conviction. 3 See State v. Scriven , 339 S.C. 333 , 344, 529 S.E.2d 71 , 76 (Ct. App. 2000) (providing a trial court must conduct "a meaningful analysis to balance the impeachment value of [a defendant's] prior convictions, if any, against the prejudicial impact, as clearly required under Rule 609(a)(1)"). 4 Perhaps a clearer statement in Bryant would have been that the prior firearms convictions "had little" to do with the defendant's credibility, as we did not intend to hold prior firearms convictions are per se 2019For consistency, we will refer to this prior conviction as a strong arm robbery conviction. 3 See State v. Scriven , 339 S.C. 333 , 344, 529 S.E.2d 71 , 76 (Ct. App. 2000) (providing a trial court must conduct "a meaningful analysis to balance the impeachment value of [a defendant's] prior convictions, if any, against the prejudicial impact, as clearly required under Rule 609(a)(1)"). 4 Perhaps a clearer statement in Bryant would have been that the prior firearms convictions "had little" to do with the defendant's credibility, as we did not intend to hold prior firearms convictions are per se | 2 | 3 |
State v. Grantgreen2 sentences2019Cf. State v. Rayfield, 369 S.C. 106, 119 , 631 S.E.2d 244, 251 (2006) (Pleicones, J., dissenting in part) ("Some principles of law, however, are not to be charged to a jury."), majority opinion overruled by State v. Stukes, 416 S.C. 493, 499 , 787 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2016) (holding the jury charge then Associate Justice Pleicones objected to being given should no longer be given because "it is not within the province of the court to express an opinion to the jury on its view of the facts"); see also State v. Grant, 275 S.C. 404, 407 , 272 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1980) ("The impression is sometimes gaine 2019Cf. State v. Rayfield, 369 S.C. 106, 119 , 631 S.E.2d 244, 251 (2006) (Pleicones, J., dissenting in part) ("Some principles of law, however, are not to be charged to a jury."), majority opinion overruled by State v. Stukes, 416 S.C. 493, 499 , 787 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2016) (holding the jury charge then Associate Justice Pleicones objected to being given should no longer be given because "it is not within the province of the court to express an opinion to the jury on its view of the facts"); see also State v. Grant, 275 S.C. 404, 407 , 272 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1980) ("The impression is sometimes gaine | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stukesgreen2 sentences2019Cf. State v. Rayfield, 369 S.C. 106, 119 , 631 S.E.2d 244, 251 (2006) (Pleicones, J., dissenting in part) ("Some principles of law, however, are not to be charged to a jury."), majority opinion overruled by State v. Stukes, 416 S.C. 493, 499 , 787 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2016) (holding the jury charge then Associate Justice Pleicones objected to being given should no longer be given because "it is not within the province of the court to express an opinion to the jury on its view of the facts"); see also State v. Grant, 275 S.C. 404, 407 , 272 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1980) ("The impression is sometimes gaine 2019Cf. State v. Rayfield, 369 S.C. 106, 119 , 631 S.E.2d 244, 251 (2006) (Pleicones, J., dissenting in part) ("Some principles of law, however, are not to be charged to a jury."), majority opinion overruled by State v. Stukes, 416 S.C. 493, 499 , 787 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2016) (holding the jury charge then Associate Justice Pleicones objected to being given should no longer be given because "it is not within the province of the court to express an opinion to the jury on its view of the facts"); see also State v. Grant, 275 S.C. 404, 407 , 272 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1980) ("The impression is sometimes gaine | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dixongreen2 sentences2015See State v. Dixon, 269 S.C. 107 , 236 S.E.2d 419 (1977) (holding the issue of whether there was an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel should be raised by way of PCR, not appeal, where the issue of sufficiency of the waiver was not presented to the trial court); see also Gardner v. State, 351 S.C. 407 , 570 S.E.2d 184 (2002) (stating if the record fails to demonstrate the petitioner made an informed choice to proceed pro se, with "eyes open," the petitioner did not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel); Watts v. State, 347 S.C. 399 , 556 S.E.2d 368 (2001) (stati 2015See State v. Dixon, 269 S.C. 107 , 236 S.E.2d 419 (1977) (holding the issue of whether there was an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel should be raised by way of PCR, not appeal, where the issue of sufficiency of the waiver was not presented to the trial court); see also Gardner v. State, 351 S.C. 407 , 570 S.E.2d 184 (2002) (stating if the record fails to demonstrate the petitioner made an informed choice to proceed pro se, with "eyes open," the petitioner did not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel); Watts v. State, 347 S.C. 399 , 556 S.E.2d 368 (2001) (stati | 1 | 1 |
Gardner v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See State v. Dixon, 269 S.C. 107 , 236 S.E.2d 419 (1977) (holding the issue of whether there was an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel should be raised by way of PCR, not appeal, where the issue of sufficiency of the waiver was not presented to the trial court); see also Gardner v. State, 351 S.C. 407 , 570 S.E.2d 184 (2002) (stating if the record fails to demonstrate the petitioner made an informed choice to proceed pro se, with "eyes open," the petitioner did not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel); Watts v. State, 347 S.C. 399 , 556 S.E.2d 368 (2001) (stati 2015See State v. Dixon, 269 S.C. 107 , 236 S.E.2d 419 (1977) (holding the issue of whether there was an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel should be raised by way of PCR, not appeal, where the issue of sufficiency of the waiver was not presented to the trial court); see also Gardner v. State, 351 S.C. 407 , 570 S.E.2d 184 (2002) (stating if the record fails to demonstrate the petitioner made an informed choice to proceed pro se, with "eyes open," the petitioner did not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel); Watts v. State, 347 S.C. 399 , 556 S.E.2d 368 (2001) (stati | 1 | 1 |
Payne v. Dewittgreen1 sentence2013Finberg, Annotation, Defaulting Defendant’s Right to Notice and Hearing as to Determination of Amount of Damages, 15 A.L.R.3d 586 , § 5 (1967 & Supp.2013) (identifying state cases where defaulting defendant had the right to cross-examine plaintiffs witnesses and to introduce affirmative testimony on his own behalf in mitigation of the damages); 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 299 (2006) (citing state cases where courts have approved varying levels of defendant’s participation in post-default proceedings); Payne v. Dewitt, 995 P.2d 1088, 1094-95 (Okla.1999) (recognizing defaulting defendant’s statutor | 1 | 1 |
Lanier v. Laniergreen2 sentences2009See generally Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 215 , 612 S.E.2d 456, 458 (Ct.App.2005) (finding that the appellant has the burden to convince this Court that the family court committed legal emr on appeal in a child custody case) (emphasis added). *45 Furthermore, Mother’s speculative claim that “adequate preparation of her case for trial may have avoided trial ... [and] most probably have brought about a different result” is insufficient to establish that she was deprived of a meaningful hearing in violation of her due process rights, particularly when she never raised this issue to the family 2009See generally Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 215 , 612 S.E.2d 456, 458 (Ct.App.2005) (finding that the appellant has the burden to convince this Court that the family court committed legal emr on appeal in a child custody case) (emphasis added). *45 Furthermore, Mother’s speculative claim that “adequate preparation of her case for trial may have avoided trial ... [and] most probably have brought about a different result” is insufficient to establish that she was deprived of a meaningful hearing in violation of her due process rights, particularly when she never raised this issue to the family | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rayfieldgreen2 sentences2019Cf. State v. Rayfield, 369 S.C. 106, 119 , 631 S.E.2d 244, 251 (2006) (Pleicones, J., dissenting in part) ("Some principles of law, however, are not to be charged to a jury."), majority opinion overruled by State v. Stukes, 416 S.C. 493, 499 , 787 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2016) (holding the jury charge then Associate Justice Pleicones objected to being given should no longer be given because "it is not within the province of the court to express an opinion to the jury on its view of the facts"); see also State v. Grant, 275 S.C. 404, 407 , 272 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1980) ("The impression is sometimes gaine 2019Cf. State v. Rayfield, 369 S.C. 106, 119 , 631 S.E.2d 244, 251 (2006) (Pleicones, J., dissenting in part) ("Some principles of law, however, are not to be charged to a jury."), majority opinion overruled by State v. Stukes, 416 S.C. 493, 499 , 787 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2016) (holding the jury charge then Associate Justice Pleicones objected to being given should no longer be given because "it is not within the province of the court to express an opinion to the jury on its view of the facts"); see also State v. Grant, 275 S.C. 404, 407 , 272 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1980) ("The impression is sometimes gaine | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ake v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2015“Thus, although the State is not required to provide the indigent defendant with unlimited funding, it must ensure that the defendant has competent counsel and the services of experts necessary to a meaningful defense[.]” Id. 1992Thus, while the Court has not held that a State must purchase for the indigent defendant all the assistance that his wealthier counterparts might buy, it has often reaffirmed that fundamental fairness entitles indi *460 gent defendants to an ‘adequate opportunity to present their claims fairly within the adversary system/ Ake, supra, 470 U.S. at 77 , 105 S.Ct. at 1093 , 84 L.Ed. (2d) at 62 [internal quotations omitted]. | 2 | 1992–2015 |
Jacob Doe v. The University of North Carolina System
green
1 sentence2025Code Ann. § 1-23-310 (3) (2005); see § 59-105-40(A), (B)(4) (requiring institutions of higher learning to implement a written sexual assault policy addressing procedures for disciplinary action in cases of alleged sexual assault); Doe v. Univ. of N. Carolina Sys., 133 F.4th 305 , 317 (4th Cir. 2025) ("[A]s a matter of procedural due process, an accused student must be 'afforded the meaningful hearing to which they [are] entitled.'" (quoting Tigrett v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 290 F.3d 620 , 630 (4th Cir. 2002))); id. (addressing the appropriate scope of "a meaningful hearing in highe | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Kerr Tigrett v. The Rector And Visitors Of The University Of Virginia
green
2 sentences2025Code Ann. § 1-23-310 (3) (2005); see § 59-105-40(A), (B)(4) (requiring institutions of higher learning to implement a written sexual assault policy addressing procedures for disciplinary action in cases of alleged sexual assault); Doe v. Univ. of N. Carolina Sys., 133 F.4th 305 , 317 (4th Cir. 2025) ("[A]s a matter of procedural due process, an accused student must be 'afforded the meaningful hearing to which they [are] entitled.'" (quoting Tigrett v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 290 F.3d 620 , 630 (4th Cir. 2002))); id. (addressing the appropriate scope of "a meaningful hearing in highe 2025Code Ann. § 1-23-310 (3) (2005); see § 59-105-40(A), (B)(4) (requiring institutions of higher learning to implement a written sexual assault policy addressing procedures for disciplinary action in cases of alleged sexual assault); Doe v. Univ. of N. Carolina Sys., 133 F.4th 305 , 317 (4th Cir. 2025) ("[A]s a matter of procedural due process, an accused student must be 'afforded the meaningful hearing to which they [are] entitled.'" (quoting Tigrett v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 290 F.3d 620 , 630 (4th Cir. 2002))); id. (addressing the appropriate scope of "a meaningful hearing in highe | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Watts v. State
green
2 sentences2015See State v. Dixon, 269 S.C. 107 , 236 S.E.2d 419 (1977) (holding the issue of whether there was an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel should be raised by way of PCR, not appeal, where the issue of sufficiency of the waiver was not presented to the trial court); see also Gardner v. State, 351 S.C. 407 , 570 S.E.2d 184 (2002) (stating if the record fails to demonstrate the petitioner made an informed choice to proceed pro se, with "eyes open," the petitioner did not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel); Watts v. State, 347 S.C. 399 , 556 S.E.2d 368 (2001) (stati 2015See State v. Dixon, 269 S.C. 107 , 236 S.E.2d 419 (1977) (holding the issue of whether there was an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel should be raised by way of PCR, not appeal, where the issue of sufficiency of the waiver was not presented to the trial court); see also Gardner v. State, 351 S.C. 407 , 570 S.E.2d 184 (2002) (stating if the record fails to demonstrate the petitioner made an informed choice to proceed pro se, with "eyes open," the petitioner did not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel); Watts v. State, 347 S.C. 399 , 556 S.E.2d 368 (2001) (stati | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Wroten v. State
green
2 sentences2015See State v. Dixon, 269 S.C. 107 , 236 S.E.2d 419 (1977) (holding the issue of whether there was an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel should be raised by way of PCR, not appeal, where the issue of sufficiency of the waiver was not presented to the trial court); see also Gardner v. State, 351 S.C. 407 , 570 S.E.2d 184 (2002) (stating if the record fails to demonstrate the petitioner made an informed choice to proceed pro se, with "eyes open," the petitioner did not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel); Watts v. State, 347 S.C. 399 , 556 S.E.2d 368 (2001) (stati 2015See State v. Dixon, 269 S.C. 107 , 236 S.E.2d 419 (1977) (holding the issue of whether there was an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel should be raised by way of PCR, not appeal, where the issue of sufficiency of the waiver was not presented to the trial court); see also Gardner v. State, 351 S.C. 407 , 570 S.E.2d 184 (2002) (stating if the record fails to demonstrate the petitioner made an informed choice to proceed pro se, with "eyes open," the petitioner did not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel); Watts v. State, 347 S.C. 399 , 556 S.E.2d 368 (2001) (stati | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.