8 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2026 3 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. Greengreen2 sentences2026See Rule 901(b), SCRE (listing "[b]y way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, . . . examples of authentication or identification conforming to the requirements of th[e] rule"); Brown, 424 S.C. at 488 , 818 S.E.2d at 740 (explaining that all "evidence must be authenticated or identified in order to be admissible"); State v. Green, 427 S.C. 223, 230 , 830 S.E.2d 711, 714 (Ct. App. 2019), aff'd as modified, 432 S.C. 97 , 851 S.E.2d 440 (2020) ("The authentication standard is not high, and a party need not rule out any possibility the evidence is not authentic." (internal citation o 2026See Rule 901(b), SCRE (listing "[b]y way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, . . . examples of authentication or identification conforming to the requirements of th[e] rule"); Brown, 424 S.C. at 488 , 818 S.E.2d at 740 (explaining that all "evidence must be authenticated or identified in order to be admissible"); State v. Green, 427 S.C. 223, 230 , 830 S.E.2d 711, 714 (Ct. App. 2019), aff'd as modified, 432 S.C. 97 , 851 S.E.2d 440 (2020) ("The authentication standard is not high, and a party need not rule out any possibility the evidence is not authentic." (internal citation o | 3 | 3 |
Deep Keel, LLC v. Atlantic Private Equity Group, LLCgreen2 sentences2020Private Equity Grp., LLC, 413 S.C. 58, 64-65 , 773 S.E.2d 607, 610 (Ct. App. 2015) (noting the authentication standard is not high and does not demand a conclusive demonstration of the genuineness of the evidence). 2020Private Equity Grp., LLC, 413 S.C. 58, 64-65 , 773 S.E.2d 607, 610 (Ct. App. 2015) (noting the authentication standard is not high and does not demand a conclusive demonstration of the genuineness of the evidence). | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Mohammad Hassangreen2 sentences2016Private Equity Grp., LLC, 413 S.C. 58, 64-65 , 773 S.E.2d 607, 610 (Ct. App. 2015) ("'[T]he burden to authenticate . . . is not high' and requires only that the proponent 'offer[ ] a satisfactory foundation from which the jury could reasonably find that the evidence is authentic.'" (alternations in original) (quoting United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 133 (4th Cir. 2014)); id. at 65, 773 S.E.2d at 610 ("The authentication requirement does not demand that the proponent of . . . evidence conclusively demonstrate [its] genuineness . . . .") (alterations in original) (quoting 29A Am. 2015The authentication requirement “is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Id. “[T]he burden to authenticate ... is not high” and requires only that the proponent “offer[ ] a satisfactory foundation from which the jury could reasonably find that the evidence is authentic.” United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 133 (4th Cir.2014) (decided under Fed.R.Evid. 901(a) 3 ); see also 29A Am. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2026See Rule 901(b), SCRE (listing "[b]y way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, . . . examples of authentication or identification conforming to the requirements of th[e] rule"); Brown, 424 S.C. at 488 , 818 S.E.2d at 740 (explaining that all "evidence must be authenticated or identified in order to be admissible"); State v. Green, 427 S.C. 223, 230 , 830 S.E.2d 711, 714 (Ct. App. 2019), aff'd as modified, 432 S.C. 97 , 851 S.E.2d 440 (2020) ("The authentication standard is not high, and a party need not rule out any possibility the evidence is not authentic." (internal citation o 2026See Rule 901(b), SCRE (listing "[b]y way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, . . . examples of authentication or identification conforming to the requirements of th[e] rule"); Brown, 424 S.C. at 488 , 818 S.E.2d at 740 (explaining that all "evidence must be authenticated or identified in order to be admissible"); State v. Green, 427 S.C. 223, 230 , 830 S.E.2d 711, 714 (Ct. App. 2019), aff'd as modified, 432 S.C. 97 , 851 S.E.2d 440 (2020) ("The authentication standard is not high, and a party need not rule out any possibility the evidence is not authentic." (internal citation o | 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. Rich
green
2 sentences2009Instead, it merely requires “ ‘evidence as to when and by whom the card was made and that the prints on the card were in fact those of this defendant.’ ” Anderson, 378 S.C. at 248 , 662 S.E.2d at 464 (quoting Rich, 293 S.C. at 174 , 359 S.E.2d at 282 ). 2009Instead, it merely requires “ ‘evidence as to when and by whom the card was made and that the prints on the card were in fact those of this defendant.’ ” Anderson, 378 S.C. at 248 , 662 S.E.2d at 464 (quoting Rich, 293 S.C. at 174 , 359 S.E.2d at 282 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2009Instead, it merely requires “ ‘evidence as to when and by whom the card was made and that the prints on the card were in fact those of this defendant.’ ” Anderson, 378 S.C. at 248 , 662 S.E.2d at 464 (quoting Rich, 293 S.C. at 174 , 359 S.E.2d at 282 ). 2009Instead, it merely requires “ ‘evidence as to when and by whom the card was made and that the prints on the card were in fact those of this defendant.’ ” Anderson, 378 S.C. at 248 , 662 S.E.2d at 464 (quoting Rich, 293 S.C. at 174 , 359 S.E.2d at 282 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.