8 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1907–2016 0 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. Colfgreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622, 629 , 525 S.E.2d 246, 249 (2000) (concluding that when the circuit court failed to include an on-the-record Rule 609 balancing test, the appellate court “should have remanded the question to the trial court” rather than conduct the balancing test, reasoning that “[i]t is difficult, if not impossible, for an appellate court to balance the interests at stake when the record does not contain the specific facts and circumstances necessary to a decision”); State v. Howard, 384 S.C. 212, 223 , 682 S.E.2d 42, 48 (Ct.App.2009) (finding the circuit court erred in 2016See, e.g., State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622, 629 , 525 S.E.2d 246, 249 (2000) (concluding that when the circuit court failed to include an on-the-record Rule 609 balancing test, the appellate court “should have remanded the question to the trial court” rather than conduct the balancing test, reasoning that “[i]t is difficult, if not impossible, for an appellate court to balance the interests at stake when the record does not contain the specific facts and circumstances necessary to a decision”); State v. Howard, 384 S.C. 212, 223 , 682 S.E.2d 42, 48 (Ct.App.2009) (finding the circuit court erred in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Howardgreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622, 629 , 525 S.E.2d 246, 249 (2000) (concluding that when the circuit court failed to include an on-the-record Rule 609 balancing test, the appellate court “should have remanded the question to the trial court” rather than conduct the balancing test, reasoning that “[i]t is difficult, if not impossible, for an appellate court to balance the interests at stake when the record does not contain the specific facts and circumstances necessary to a decision”); State v. Howard, 384 S.C. 212, 223 , 682 S.E.2d 42, 48 (Ct.App.2009) (finding the circuit court erred in 2016See, e.g., State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622, 629 , 525 S.E.2d 246, 249 (2000) (concluding that when the circuit court failed to include an on-the-record Rule 609 balancing test, the appellate court “should have remanded the question to the trial court” rather than conduct the balancing test, reasoning that “[i]t is difficult, if not impossible, for an appellate court to balance the interests at stake when the record does not contain the specific facts and circumstances necessary to a decision”); State v. Howard, 384 S.C. 212, 223 , 682 S.E.2d 42, 48 (Ct.App.2009) (finding the circuit court erred in | 1 | 1 |
Callen v. Callengreen2 sentences2013See Callen v. Callen, 365 S.C. 618, 627, 620 S.E.2d 59, 63-64 (2005) (finding the trial court is under a duty, when the situation arises, to delay the trial for the purpose of ascertaining information relating to the factors used to determine whether an undisclosed witness should be excluded). 2013See Callen v. Callen, 365 S.C. 618, 627, 620 S.E.2d 59, 63-64 (2005) (finding the trial court is under a duty, when the situation arises, to delay the trial for the purpose of ascertaining information relating to the factors used to determine whether an undisclosed witness should be excluded). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Estate of Birchgreen2 sentences2011In re Estate of Schroeder, 441 N.W.2d 527 (Minn.Ct.App.1989); see also In re Estate of Birch, 50 A.D.2d 475 , 378 N.Y.S.2d 792, 797 (1976) (stating where a necessary requirement for a compromise agreement is lacking, the agreement may not be approved). 2011In re Estate of Schroeder, 441 N.W.2d 527 (Minn.Ct.App.1989); see also In re Estate of Birch, 50 A.D.2d 475 , 378 N.Y.S.2d 792, 797 (1976) (stating where a necessary requirement for a compromise agreement is lacking, the agreement may not be approved). | 1 | 1 |
Elledge v. Richland/Lexington School District Fivegreen2 sentences2005Five, 352 S.C. 179, 185-89 , 573 S.E.2d 789, 792-95 (2002) (finding prejudicial error in the exclusion of industry safety standards for playground equipment because such standards would have helped establish the necessary standard of care, would have provided important support and enhancement of opinion testimony of expert witnesses, and would not have been cumulative to experts testimony); Senn v. J.S. 2005Five, 352 S.C. 179, 185-89 , 573 S.E.2d 789, 792-95 (2002) (finding prejudicial error in the exclusion of industry safety standards for playground equipment because such standards would have helped establish the necessary standard of care, would have provided important support and enhancement of opinion testimony of expert witnesses, and would not have been cumulative to experts testimony); Senn v. J.S. | 1 | 1 |
Senn v. J. S. Weeks & Co.green2 sentences2005Weeks Co., 255 S.C. 585, 591 , 180 S.E.2d 336, 338 (1971) (in action for injuries allegedly resulting from defendant’s truck being parked illegally in manner that obscured stop sign and caused motorist to proceed through intersection without stopping, it was prejudicial error to exclude photographs showing stop sign with truck parked substantially as described by witnesses because the photographs were relevant to a basic and vital issue in the case the motorist's view of stop sign); Sellers v. Public Sav. 2005Weeks Co., 255 S.C. 585, 591 , 180 S.E.2d 336, 338 (1971) (in action for injuries allegedly resulting from defendant’s truck being parked illegally in manner that obscured stop sign and caused motorist to proceed through intersection without stopping, it was prejudicial error to exclude photographs showing stop sign with truck parked substantially as described by witnesses because the photographs were relevant to a basic and vital issue in the case the motorist's view of stop sign); Sellers v. Public Sav. | 1 | 1 |
Patel v. Patelgreen2 sentences2005Section 20-7-420(38) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2004), provides that attorneys fees may be awarded in an action brought in family court. An award of attorneys fees rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge and should not be disturbed on appeal unless there is an abuse of discretion. Patel v. Patel , 359 S.C. 515, 533 , 599 S.E.2d 114, 123 (2004). 2005Section 20-7-420(38) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2004), provides that attorneys fees may be awarded in an action brought in family court. An award of attorneys fees rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge and should not be disturbed on appeal unless there is an abuse of discretion. Patel v. Patel , 359 S.C. 515, 533 , 599 S.E.2d 114, 123 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Henggeler v. Hansongreen2 sentences2005See Henggeler v. Hanson , 333 S.C. 598, 605 , 510 S.E.2d 722, 726 (Ct. App. 1998) (finding no abuse of discretion in awarding attorneys fees when the family court considered the necessary factors and there was evidence supporting the courts conclusions). 2005See Henggeler v. Hanson , 333 S.C. 598, 605 , 510 S.E.2d 722, 726 (Ct. App. 1998) (finding no abuse of discretion in awarding attorneys fees when the family court considered the necessary factors and there was evidence supporting the courts conclusions). | 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 Re Estate of Schroeder
green
1 sentence2011In re Estate of Schroeder, 441 N.W.2d 527 (Minn.Ct.App.1989); see also In re Estate of Birch, 50 A.D.2d 475 , 378 N.Y.S.2d 792, 797 (1976) (stating where a necessary requirement for a compromise agreement is lacking, the agreement may not be approved). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Decker v. Bishop of Charleston
green
2 sentences1977An auditor's report appended to the deposition of the hospital administrator reflects the fact that the assets of the defendant hospital increased from 13.8 million dollars in 1973 to 14.5 million dollars in 1974. [4] The cases dealing with Section 46-801 serve as an adequate starting point for interpreting the necessary standard of proof we set forth in this opinion, to the extent that the holdings in such cases may logically be applied to the facts in a case such as the one at bar. [1] Lindler v. Columbia Hospital , 98 S.C. 25 , 81 S.E. 512 (1914). [2] The charity in Decker v. Bishop of Char 1977An auditor's report appended to the deposition of the hospital administrator reflects the fact that the assets of the defendant hospital increased from 13.8 million dollars in 1973 to 14.5 million dollars in 1974. [4] The cases dealing with Section 46-801 serve as an adequate starting point for interpreting the necessary standard of proof we set forth in this opinion, to the extent that the holdings in such cases may logically be applied to the facts in a case such as the one at bar. [1] Lindler v. Columbia Hospital , 98 S.C. 25 , 81 S.E. 512 (1914). [2] The charity in Decker v. Bishop of Char | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Lindler v. Columbia Hospital
green
2 sentences1977An auditor's report appended to the deposition of the hospital administrator reflects the fact that the assets of the defendant hospital increased from 13.8 million dollars in 1973 to 14.5 million dollars in 1974. [4] The cases dealing with Section 46-801 serve as an adequate starting point for interpreting the necessary standard of proof we set forth in this opinion, to the extent that the holdings in such cases may logically be applied to the facts in a case such as the one at bar. [1] Lindler v. Columbia Hospital , 98 S.C. 25 , 81 S.E. 512 (1914). [2] The charity in Decker v. Bishop of Char 1977An auditor's report appended to the deposition of the hospital administrator reflects the fact that the assets of the defendant hospital increased from 13.8 million dollars in 1973 to 14.5 million dollars in 1974. [4] The cases dealing with Section 46-801 serve as an adequate starting point for interpreting the necessary standard of proof we set forth in this opinion, to the extent that the holdings in such cases may logically be applied to the facts in a case such as the one at bar. [1] Lindler v. Columbia Hospital , 98 S.C. 25 , 81 S.E. 512 (1914). [2] The charity in Decker v. Bishop of Char | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Gist v. Telegraph Co.
neutral
1 sentence1907It is however, a necessary exception to the universality of the rule, that no people are bound, or ought to enforce or hold valid in their courts of justice any contract which is injurious to their public rights, or offends their morals or contravenes their public policy or violates a public law," and again on page 590, "One of the established rules in respect to the doctrine of comity is that when the lex loci contractus and the lex fori as to conflicting rights acquired in each come in direct collision the comity of nations must yield to the positive law of the land, 2 Kent, 461." This rule | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Meares v. Finlayson
neutral
2 sentences1907It is however, a necessary exception to the universality of the rule, that no people are bound, or ought to enforce or hold valid in their courts of justice any contract which is injurious to their public rights, or offends their morals or contravenes their public policy or violates a public law," and again on page 590, "One of the established rules in respect to the doctrine of comity is that when the lex loci contractus and the lex fori as to conflicting rights acquired in each come in direct collision the comity of nations must yield to the positive law of the land, 2 Kent, 461." This rule 1907It is however, a necessary exception to the universality of the rule, that no people are bound, or ought to enforce or hold valid in their courts of justice any contract which is injurious to their public rights, or offends their morals or contravenes their public policy or violates a public law," and again on page 590, "One of the established rules in respect to the doctrine of comity is that when the lex loci contractus and the lex fori as to conflicting rights acquired in each come in direct collision the comity of nations must yield to the positive law of the land, 2 Kent, 461." This rule | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Carpenter v. Lewis
neutral
1 sentence1907It is however, a necessary exception to the universality of the rule, that no people are bound, or ought to enforce or hold valid in their courts of justice any contract which is injurious to their public rights, or offends their morals or contravenes their public policy or violates a public law," and again on page 590, "One of the established rules in respect to the doctrine of comity is that when the lex loci contractus and the lex fori as to conflicting rights acquired in each come in direct collision the comity of nations must yield to the positive law of the land, 2 Kent, 461." This rule | 1 | 1907–1907 |
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.