Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2019–2024 7 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. Glenngreen2 sentences2024"A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 290, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013)). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [trial] court to deny immunity; the [trial] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the 2024"A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 290, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013)). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [trial] court to deny immunity; the [trial] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the | 3 | 5 |
State v. Currygreen2 sentences2024"A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 290, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013)). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [trial] court to deny immunity; the [trial] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the 2024"A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 290, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013)). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [trial] court to deny immunity; the [trial] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the | 3 | 3 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2024"A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 290, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013)). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [trial] court to deny immunity; the [trial] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the 2024"A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 290, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013)). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [trial] court to deny immunity; the [trial] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the | 3 | 3 |
State v. Xzariera O. Graygreen2 sentences2024"A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 290, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013)). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [trial] court to deny immunity; the [trial] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the 2024"A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 290, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013)). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [trial] court to deny immunity; the [trial] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fordgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Ford, 439 S.C. 261 , 271, 886 S.E.2d 710 , 715 (Ct. App. 2023), cert. denied (Mar. 5, 2024) ("[T]he circuit court, sitting as fact-finder, must make specific findings that support its immunity decision."); Gray, 426 S.C. at 142 , 882 S.E.2d at 475 (reversing the trial court's denial of Gray's motion for immunity under the Act because the court "impermissibly abdicated its role as the fact-finder at Gray's immunity hearing"). 2024See State v. Ford, 439 S.C. 261 , 271, 886 S.E.2d 710 , 715 (Ct. App. 2023), cert. denied (Mar. 5, 2024) ("[T]he circuit court, sitting as fact-finder, must make specific findings that support its immunity decision."); Gray, 426 S.C. at 142 , 882 S.E.2d at 475 (reversing the trial court's denial of Gray's motion for immunity under the Act because the court "impermissibly abdicated its role as the fact-finder at Gray's immunity hearing"). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Andrewsgreen2 sentences2023At an immunity hearing, "the relevant inquiry is . . . whether the accused has proved an entitlement to immunity under the Act by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Andrews, 427 S.C. 178, 181 , 830 S.E.2d 12, 13 (2019). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [circuit] court to deny immunity; the [circuit] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the Act." Cervantes-Pavon, 426 S.C. at 451 , 827 S.E.2d at 569 . "[T]he circuit court, in announcing its ruling 2023At an immunity hearing, "the relevant inquiry is . . . whether the accused has proved an entitlement to immunity under the Act by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Andrews, 427 S.C. 178, 181 , 830 S.E.2d 12, 13 (2019). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [circuit] court to deny immunity; the [circuit] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the Act." Cervantes-Pavon, 426 S.C. at 451 , 827 S.E.2d at 569 . "[T]he circuit court, in announcing its ruling | 2 | 2 |
State v. Elvin Cervantes-Pavongreen2 sentences2024"A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 290, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013)). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [trial] court to deny immunity; the [trial] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the 2024"A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 290, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013)). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [trial] court to deny immunity; the [trial] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the | 1 | 6 |
State v. Douglasgreen2 sentences2022See generally State v. Glenn, 429 S.C. 108 , 123, 838 S.E.2d 491 , 499 (2019) ("The circuit court is the fact-finder in immunity hearings, and we are reluctant to infer findings of fact which do not appear in the record."); State v. Douglas, 411 S.C. 307, 316 , 768 S.E.2d 232, 238 (Ct. App. 2014) ("[T]he abuse of discretion standard of review does not allow [an appellate] court to reweigh the evidence or second-guess the trial court's assessment of witness credibility."). 2022See generally State v. Glenn, 429 S.C. 108 , 123, 838 S.E.2d 491 , 499 (2019) ("The circuit court is the fact-finder in immunity hearings, and we are reluctant to infer findings of fact which do not appear in the record."); State v. Douglas, 411 S.C. 307, 316 , 768 S.E.2d 232, 238 (Ct. App. 2014) ("[T]he abuse of discretion standard of review does not allow [an appellate] court to reweigh the evidence or second-guess the trial court's assessment of witness credibility."). | 1 | 2 |
Terwilliger v. Mariongreen2 sentences2024Fourth, the defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance"); See also State v. Cervantes-Pavon, 426 S.C. 442, 451 , 827 S.E.2d 564, 569 (2019) (finding when the evidence conflicts as to the issue of immunity, "the court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the [PPPA]" and then, "if the circuit court determines the movant has not met his burden of proof as to immunity, the case will go to trial, and the iss 2024Fourth, the defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance"); See also State v. Cervantes-Pavon, 426 S.C. 442, 451 , 827 S.E.2d 564, 569 (2019) (finding when the evidence conflicts as to the issue of immunity, "the court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the [PPPA]" and then, "if the circuit court determines the movant has not met his burden of proof as to immunity, the case will go to trial, and the iss | 1 | 1 |
State v. John McCartygreen1 sentence2023At an immunity hearing, "the relevant inquiry is . . . whether the accused has proved an entitlement to immunity under the Act by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Andrews, 427 S.C. 178, 181 , 830 S.E.2d 12, 13 (2019). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [circuit] court to deny immunity; the [circuit] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the Act." Cervantes-Pavon, 426 S.C. at 451 , 827 S.E.2d at 569 . "[T]he circuit court, in announcing its ruling | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.