8 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2015 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. Spencergreen2 sentences2000See State v. Rider, 320 S.C. 533 , 466 S.E.2d 367 (1996) (vacating conviction where stalking statute was expressly repealed and new statute substituted in its place, and the repealing act did not contain a saving clause); State v. Defee, 246 S.C. 555 , 144 S.E.2d 806 (1965) (upholding the dismissal of an indictment for violation of obscenity statute where new obscenity statute became effective after alleged violation but before trial; act containing new statute did not contain saving clause and was broad enough in scope to repeal previous statute); State v. Spencer, 177 S.C. 346, 355-56 , 181 2000See State v. Rider, 320 S.C. 533 , 466 S.E.2d 367 (1996) (vacating conviction where stalking statute was expressly repealed and new statute substituted in its place, and the repealing act did not contain a saving clause); State v. Defee, 246 S.C. 555 , 144 S.E.2d 806 (1965) (upholding the dismissal of an indictment for violation of obscenity statute where new obscenity statute became effective after alleged violation but before trial; act containing new statute did not contain saving clause and was broad enough in scope to repeal previous statute); State v. Spencer, 177 S.C. 346, 355-56 , 181 | 1 | 2 |
Advance International, Inc. v. North Carolina National Bankgreen2 sentences2000See State v. Rider, 320 S.C. 533 , 466 S.E.2d 367 (1996) (vacating conviction where stalking statute was expressly repealed and new statute substituted in its place, and the repealing act did not contain a saving clause); State v. Defee, 246 S.C. 555 , 144 S.E.2d 806 (1965) (upholding the dismissal of an indictment for violation of obscenity statute where new obscenity statute became effective after alleged violation but before trial; act containing new statute did not contain saving clause and was broad enough in scope to repeal previous statute); State v. Spencer, 177 S.C. 346, 355-56 , 181 2000See State v. Rider, 320 S.C. 533 , 466 S.E.2d 367 (1996) (vacating conviction where stalking statute was expressly repealed and new statute substituted in its place, and the repealing act did not contain a saving clause); State v. Defee, 246 S.C. 555 , 144 S.E.2d 806 (1965) (upholding the dismissal of an indictment for violation of obscenity statute where new obscenity statute became effective after alleged violation but before trial; act containing new statute did not contain saving clause and was broad enough in scope to repeal previous statute); State v. Spencer, 177 S.C. 346, 355-56 , 181 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ridergreen2 sentences2000See State v. Rider, 320 S.C. 533 , 466 S.E.2d 367 (1996) (vacating conviction where stalking statute was expressly repealed and new statute substituted in its place, and the repealing act did not contain a saving clause); State v. Defee, 246 S.C. 555 , 144 S.E.2d 806 (1965) (upholding the dismissal of an indictment for violation of obscenity statute where new obscenity statute became effective after alleged violation but before trial; act containing new statute did not contain saving clause and was broad enough in scope to repeal previous statute); State v. Spencer, 177 S.C. 346, 355-56 , 181 2000See State v. Rider, 320 S.C. 533 , 466 S.E.2d 367 (1996) (vacating conviction where stalking statute was expressly repealed and new statute substituted in its place, and the repealing act did not contain a saving clause); State v. Defee, 246 S.C. 555 , 144 S.E.2d 806 (1965) (upholding the dismissal of an indictment for violation of obscenity statute where new obscenity statute became effective after alleged violation but before trial; act containing new statute did not contain saving clause and was broad enough in scope to repeal previous statute); State v. Spencer, 177 S.C. 346, 355-56 , 181 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Varnergreen2 sentences2000The Court has indicated, however, that a pending prosecution of a defendant may continue when a criminal statute is amended, but not repealed. “[A] statutory change in the punishment for a crime does not have the effect of impairing a prosecution pending at the time of the enactment of the statutory change, except to the extent of the punishment to be imposed.” State v. Gilliam, 208 S.C. 126, 130 , 37 S.E.2d 299, 301 (1946) (finding indictment for violation of former alcoholic beverage statutes was valid even though Legislature modified statutes during pending prosecution, and the repealing ac 2000The Court has indicated, however, that a pending prosecution of a defendant may continue when a criminal statute is amended, but not repealed. “[A] statutory change in the punishment for a crime does not have the effect of impairing a prosecution pending at the time of the enactment of the statutory change, except to the extent of the punishment to be imposed.” State v. Gilliam, 208 S.C. 126, 130 , 37 S.E.2d 299, 301 (1946) (finding indictment for violation of former alcoholic beverage statutes was valid even though Legislature modified statutes during pending prosecution, and the repealing ac | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thriftgreen2 sentences2000State v. Thrift, 312 S.C. 282, 304-06 , 440 S.E.2d 341, 354 (1994). 2000State v. Thrift, 312 S.C. 282, 304-06 , 440 S.E.2d 341, 354 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Murphygreen2 sentences2000Criminal Law § 29 (1989) (general rule is that repeal of a criminal statute without a saving clause ends prosecution and punishment); see also Taylor v. Murphy, 293 S.C. 316, 318-19 , 360 S.E.2d 314, 316 (1987) (stating in tort *147 case that “[t]he general rule is that the repeal of a statute operates retrospectively, and has the effect of blotting the statute out completely as if it had never existed and of putting an end to all proceedings under it which have not been prosecuted to final judgment”). 2000Criminal Law § 29 (1989) (general rule is that repeal of a criminal statute without a saving clause ends prosecution and punishment); see also Taylor v. Murphy, 293 S.C. 316, 318-19 , 360 S.E.2d 314, 316 (1987) (stating in tort *147 case that “[t]he general rule is that the repeal of a statute operates retrospectively, and has the effect of blotting the statute out completely as if it had never existed and of putting an end to all proceedings under it which have not been prosecuted to final judgment”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gilliamgreen2 sentences2000The Court has indicated, however, that a pending prosecution of a defendant may continue when a criminal statute is amended, but not repealed. “[A] statutory change in the punishment for a crime does not have the effect of impairing a prosecution pending at the time of the enactment of the statutory change, except to the extent of the punishment to be imposed.” State v. Gilliam, 208 S.C. 126, 130 , 37 S.E.2d 299, 301 (1946) (finding indictment for violation of former alcoholic beverage statutes was valid even though Legislature modified statutes during pending prosecution, and the repealing ac 2000The Court has indicated, however, that a pending prosecution of a defendant may continue when a criminal statute is amended, but not repealed. “[A] statutory change in the punishment for a crime does not have the effect of impairing a prosecution pending at the time of the enactment of the statutory change, except to the extent of the punishment to be imposed.” State v. Gilliam, 208 S.C. 126, 130 , 37 S.E.2d 299, 301 (1946) (finding indictment for violation of former alcoholic beverage statutes was valid even though Legislature modified statutes during pending prosecution, and the repealing ac | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wyeth v. Levine
green
2 sentences2015"The 1962 amendments [to the FDCA] added a saving clause, indicating that a provision of state law would only be invalidated upon a direct and positive conflict with the FDCA." Id. (quotations and citations omitted). 2015“The 1962 amendments [to the FDCA] added a saving clause, indicating that a provision of state law would only be invalidated upon a direct and positive conflict with the FDCA.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
National Meat Assn. v. Harris
green
1 sentence2012The FMIA also includes a saving clause, which states that the Act "shall not preclude any State ... from making requirements] or taking other action, consistent with this [Act], with respect to any other matters regulated under this [Act].” Harris, 132 S.Ct. at 969 , n. 3 (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 678 ). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2007The majority cautioned that “[njothing in the language of the saving clause suggests an intent to save state-law tort actions that conflict with federal regulations.” Id. 2007In Geier , a young man suffered injuries while driving a 1987 Honda Accord equipped with manual shoulder and lap belts but no driver’s side airbag. 529 U.S. at 865 , 120 S.Ct. 1913 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Defee
neutral
2 sentences2000See State v. Rider, 320 S.C. 533 , 466 S.E.2d 367 (1996) (vacating conviction where stalking statute was expressly repealed and new statute substituted in its place, and the repealing act did not contain a saving clause); State v. Defee, 246 S.C. 555 , 144 S.E.2d 806 (1965) (upholding the dismissal of an indictment for violation of obscenity statute where new obscenity statute became effective after alleged violation but before trial; act containing new statute did not contain saving clause and was broad enough in scope to repeal previous statute); State v. Spencer, 177 S.C. 346, 355-56 , 181 2000See State v. Rider, 320 S.C. 533 , 466 S.E.2d 367 (1996) (vacating conviction where stalking statute was expressly repealed and new statute substituted in its place, and the repealing act did not contain a saving clause); State v. Defee, 246 S.C. 555 , 144 S.E.2d 806 (1965) (upholding the dismissal of an indictment for violation of obscenity statute where new obscenity statute became effective after alleged violation but before trial; act containing new statute did not contain saving clause and was broad enough in scope to repeal previous statute); State v. Spencer, 177 S.C. 346, 355-56 , 181 | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Freely
green
1 sentence1932The criticism is obviously without merit and the exception is overruled.” In the case of State v. Freely, 105 S. C., 248, 89 S. E., 643, 644 , the Court charged the jury: “It is as much a juror’s duty to find a verdict as it is to find a true one, if it can be done without the sacrifice of an honest conviction.” On appeal the case was reversed- on another ground, but the above charge was affirmed because of the saving clause “if it can be done without the sacrifice of an honest conviction.” These words were uttered to a jury which had for the part of a day and all of a night had the case under | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Ettor v. City of Tacoma
green
2 sentences1925"The repeal of a statute creating a right of action, without a saving clause as to pending suits, destroys the right; and a pending action at whatever stage, even after judgment but before the entry thereof, or pending an appeal, falls." Ettor v. Tacoma , 228 U.S. 148 ; 33 S.Ct., 428 ; 57 L.Ed., 773 . 1925"The repeal of a statute creating a right of action, without a saving clause as to pending suits, destroys the right; and a pending action at whatever stage, even after judgment but before the entry thereof, or pending an appeal, falls." Ettor v. Tacoma , 228 U.S. 148 ; 33 S.Ct., 428 ; 57 L.Ed., 773 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Merlo v. Johnston City & Big Muddy Coal & Mining Co.
green
2 sentences1925At common law "if a statute giving a special remedy is unconditionally repealed, without a saving clause, * * * all actions must stop where the repeal finds them." Merlo v. Coal Co. , 258 Ill., 328 ; 101 N.E., 525 . 1925At common law "if a statute giving a special remedy is unconditionally repealed, without a saving clause, * * * all actions must stop where the repeal finds them." Merlo v. Coal Co. , 258 Ill., 328 ; 101 N.E., 525 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.