7 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1926–2024 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. Jamesgreen2 sentences2024First, citing State v. James, 255 S.C. 365, 370 , 179 S.E.2d 41, 43 (1971), English argued the test reports were not admissible without the substantiating testimony of the persons who actually performed the tests. 2024First, citing State v. James, 255 S.C. 365, 370 , 179 S.E.2d 41, 43 (1971), English argued the test reports were not admissible without the substantiating testimony of the persons who actually performed the tests. | 1 | 1 |
South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Cochrangreen2 sentences2009In South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Cochran, 364 S.C. 621, 628-30 , 614 S.E.2d 642, 646-47 (2005), the court approved the admission of test results relating to a blood sample although DSS was unable to identify the courier who transported the samples from the collection facility to the testing facility. 2009In South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Cochran, 364 S.C. 621, 628-30 , 614 S.E.2d 642, 646-47 (2005), the court approved the admission of test results relating to a blood sample although DSS was unable to identify the courier who transported the samples from the collection facility to the testing facility. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Knudsen v. Duffee-Freeman, Inc.
green
2 sentences1963Jur. 659 , Evidence, Section 786. "* * * for the testimony of an expert witness to be received, his qualification as such must be first proved. * * * If that prerequisite is not met the opinion of the expert must be excluded." Knudsen v. Duffee-Freeman, Inc. , 95 Ga. App. 872 , 99 S.E. (2d) 370 . 1963Jur. 659 , Evidence, Section 786. "* * * for the testimony of an expert witness to be received, his qualification as such must be first proved. * * * If that prerequisite is not met the opinion of the expert must be excluded." Knudsen v. Duffee-Freeman, Inc. , 95 Ga. App. 872 , 99 S.E. (2d) 370 . | 2 | 1963–1963 |
State v. Jolly
green
2 sentences1994State v. Jolly, 304 S.C. 34 , 402 S.E.2d 895 (Ct.App.1991). 1994State v. Jolly, 304 S.C. 34 , 402 S.E.2d 895 (Ct.App.1991). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Diddlemeyer
green
2 sentences1992State v. Diddlemeyer, 296 S.C. 235 , 371 S.E. (2d) 793 (1988); State v. Johnson, 293 S.C. 321 , 360 S.E. (2d) 317 (1987). 1992State v. Diddlemeyer, 296 S.C. 235 , 371 S.E. (2d) 793 (1988); State v. Johnson, 293 S.C. 321 , 360 S.E. (2d) 317 (1987). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1992State v. Diddlemeyer, 296 S.C. 235 , 371 S.E. (2d) 793 (1988); State v. Johnson, 293 S.C. 321 , 360 S.E. (2d) 317 (1987). 1992State v. Diddlemeyer, 296 S.C. 235 , 371 S.E. (2d) 793 (1988); State v. Johnson, 293 S.C. 321 , 360 S.E. (2d) 317 (1987). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Templeton v. C. & W. C. Ry. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1926Templeton v Railroad Co., 117 S. C., 44; 108 S. E., 363 . | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.