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.
7 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2017 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. Dawsongreen2 sentences2017See State v. Dawson, 402 S.C. 160, 163 , 740 S.E.2d 501, 502 (2013) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 94 , 654 S.E.2d 849, 851 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The trial court's factual conclusions as to the sufficiency of an indictment will not be disturbed on appeal unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); State v. Washington, 379 S.C. 120 , 124, 665 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2008) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law."). 2017See State v. Dawson, 402 S.C. 160, 163 , 740 S.E.2d 501, 502 (2013) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 94 , 654 S.E.2d 849, 851 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The trial court's factual conclusions as to the sufficiency of an indictment will not be disturbed on appeal unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); State v. Washington, 379 S.C. 120 , 124, 665 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2008) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2017See State v. Dawson, 402 S.C. 160, 163 , 740 S.E.2d 501, 502 (2013) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 94 , 654 S.E.2d 849, 851 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The trial court's factual conclusions as to the sufficiency of an indictment will not be disturbed on appeal unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); State v. Washington, 379 S.C. 120 , 124, 665 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2008) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law."). 2017See State v. Dawson, 402 S.C. 160, 163 , 740 S.E.2d 501, 502 (2013) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 94 , 654 S.E.2d 849, 851 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The trial court's factual conclusions as to the sufficiency of an indictment will not be disturbed on appeal unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); State v. Washington, 379 S.C. 120 , 124, 665 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2008) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tumblestongreen2 sentences2017See State v. Dawson, 402 S.C. 160, 163 , 740 S.E.2d 501, 502 (2013) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 94 , 654 S.E.2d 849, 851 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The trial court's factual conclusions as to the sufficiency of an indictment will not be disturbed on appeal unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); State v. Washington, 379 S.C. 120 , 124, 665 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2008) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law."). 2017See State v. Dawson, 402 S.C. 160, 163 , 740 S.E.2d 501, 502 (2013) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 94 , 654 S.E.2d 849, 851 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The trial court's factual conclusions as to the sufficiency of an indictment will not be disturbed on appeal unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); State v. Washington, 379 S.C. 120 , 124, 665 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2008) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coopergreen2 sentences2015State v. Cooper, 334 S.C. 540, 551 , 514 S.E.2d 584, 590 (1999). 2015State v. Cooper, 334 S.C. 540, 551 , 514 S.E.2d 584, 590 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McHoneygreen2 sentences2014Code § 16-13-180 (A) (Supp. 2013) ("It is unlawful for a person to buy, receive, or possess stolen goods, chattels, or other property if the person knows or has reason to believe the goods, chattels, or property is stolen." (emphasis added)); State v. Martin, 340 S.C. 597, 602 , 533 S.E.2d 572, 574 (2000) ("In reviewing the appeal of a refusal to grant a directed verdict of not guilty, this [c]ourt must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State."); State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 97 , 544 S.E.2d 30, 36 (2001) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fai 2014Code § 16-13-180 (A) (Supp. 2013) ("It is unlawful for a person to buy, receive, or possess stolen goods, chattels, or other property if the person knows or has reason to believe the goods, chattels, or property is stolen." (emphasis added)); State v. Martin, 340 S.C. 597, 602 , 533 S.E.2d 572, 574 (2000) ("In reviewing the appeal of a refusal to grant a directed verdict of not guilty, this [c]ourt must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State."); State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 97 , 544 S.E.2d 30, 36 (2001) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fai | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martingreen2 sentences2014Code § 16-13-180 (A) (Supp. 2013) ("It is unlawful for a person to buy, receive, or possess stolen goods, chattels, or other property if the person knows or has reason to believe the goods, chattels, or property is stolen." (emphasis added)); State v. Martin, 340 S.C. 597, 602 , 533 S.E.2d 572, 574 (2000) ("In reviewing the appeal of a refusal to grant a directed verdict of not guilty, this [c]ourt must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State."); State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 97 , 544 S.E.2d 30, 36 (2001) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fai 2014Code § 16-13-180 (A) (Supp. 2013) ("It is unlawful for a person to buy, receive, or possess stolen goods, chattels, or other property if the person knows or has reason to believe the goods, chattels, or property is stolen." (emphasis added)); State v. Martin, 340 S.C. 597, 602 , 533 S.E.2d 572, 574 (2000) ("In reviewing the appeal of a refusal to grant a directed verdict of not guilty, this [c]ourt must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State."); State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 97 , 544 S.E.2d 30, 36 (2001) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fai | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whipplegreen2 sentences2014As to Evans's jury charge argument: Rule 20(b), SCRCrimP (noting the "[f]ailure to object [to jury instructions] shall constitute a waiver of objection"); State v. Whipple, 324 S.C. 43, 52 , 476 S.E.2d 683, 688 (1996) (noting that the "failure to object to the charge as given, or to request an additional charge when given an opportunity to do so constitutes a waiver of his right to complain on appeal"). 2014As to Evans's jury charge argument: Rule 20(b), SCRCrimP (noting the "[f]ailure to object [to jury instructions] shall constitute a waiver of objection"); State v. Whipple, 324 S.C. 43, 52 , 476 S.E.2d 683, 688 (1996) (noting that the "failure to object to the charge as given, or to request an additional charge when given an opportunity to do so constitutes a waiver of his right to complain on appeal"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. ODEMSgreen2 sentences2014Code § 16-13-180 (A) (Supp. 2013) ("It is unlawful for a person to buy, receive, or possess stolen goods, chattels, or other property if the person knows or has reason to believe the goods, chattels, or property is stolen." (emphasis added)); State v. Martin, 340 S.C. 597, 602 , 533 S.E.2d 572, 574 (2000) ("In reviewing the appeal of a refusal to grant a directed verdict of not guilty, this [c]ourt must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State."); State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 97 , 544 S.E.2d 30, 36 (2001) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fai 2014Code § 16-13-180 (A) (Supp. 2013) ("It is unlawful for a person to buy, receive, or possess stolen goods, chattels, or other property if the person knows or has reason to believe the goods, chattels, or property is stolen." (emphasis added)); State v. Martin, 340 S.C. 597, 602 , 533 S.E.2d 572, 574 (2000) ("In reviewing the appeal of a refusal to grant a directed verdict of not guilty, this [c]ourt must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State."); State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 97 , 544 S.E.2d 30, 36 (2001) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fai | 1 | 1 |
State v. Princegreen2 sentences2014As to Evans's motion for a new trial: State v. Prince, 316 S.C. 57, 63 , 447 S.E.2d 177, 181 (1993) ("It is well settled that the grant or refusal of a new trial is within the discretion of the [circuit court] and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion."); id. ("[W]here there is competent evidence to sustain the jury's verdict, the [circuit court] may not substitute [its] judgment for that of the jury."). 4. 2014As to Evans's motion for a new trial: State v. Prince, 316 S.C. 57, 63 , 447 S.E.2d 177, 181 (1993) ("It is well settled that the grant or refusal of a new trial is within the discretion of the [circuit court] and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion."); id. ("[W]here there is competent evidence to sustain the jury's verdict, the [circuit court] may not substitute [its] judgment for that of the jury."). 4. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Atkinsgreen2 sentences2014Code § 16-13-180 (A) (Supp. 2013) ("It is unlawful for a person to buy, receive, or possess stolen goods, chattels, or other property if the person knows or has reason to believe the goods, chattels, or property is stolen." (emphasis added)); State v. Martin, 340 S.C. 597, 602 , 533 S.E.2d 572, 574 (2000) ("In reviewing the appeal of a refusal to grant a directed verdict of not guilty, this [c]ourt must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State."); State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 97 , 544 S.E.2d 30, 36 (2001) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fai 2014Code § 16-13-180 (A) (Supp. 2013) ("It is unlawful for a person to buy, receive, or possess stolen goods, chattels, or other property if the person knows or has reason to believe the goods, chattels, or property is stolen." (emphasis added)); State v. Martin, 340 S.C. 597, 602 , 533 S.E.2d 572, 574 (2000) ("In reviewing the appeal of a refusal to grant a directed verdict of not guilty, this [c]ourt must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State."); State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 97 , 544 S.E.2d 30, 36 (2001) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fai | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2011As to overruling Evans' objection: State v. Mitchell , 330 S.C. 189, 196 , 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (noting a trial court’s ruling on the scope of cross-examination will not be disturbed on appeal absent a “manifest abuse of discretion"). 2011As to overruling Evans' objection: State v. Mitchell , 330 S.C. 189, 196 , 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (noting a trial court’s ruling on the scope of cross-examination will not be disturbed on appeal absent a “manifest abuse of discretion"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2010Code Ann. § 16-11-330 (A) (2003) (stating armed robbery occurs when a person commits robbery while armed with a deadly weapon); State v. Moore , 374 S.C. 468, 476 , 649 S.E.2d 84, 88 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Robbery is defined as the felonious or unlawful taking of money, goods, or other personal property of any value from the person of another or in his presence by violence or by putting such person in fear."); Id. at 474, 649 S.E.2d at 86 ("The appellate court may reverse the trial [court]'s denial of a motion for a directed verdict only if there is no evidence to support the [trial court's] ruling 2010Code Ann. § 16-11-330 (A) (2003) (stating armed robbery occurs when a person commits robbery while armed with a deadly weapon); State v. Moore , 374 S.C. 468, 476 , 649 S.E.2d 84, 88 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Robbery is defined as the felonious or unlawful taking of money, goods, or other personal property of any value from the person of another or in his presence by violence or by putting such person in fear."); Id. at 474, 649 S.E.2d at 86 ("The appellate court may reverse the trial [court]'s denial of a motion for a directed verdict only if there is no evidence to support the [trial court's] ruling | 1 | 1 |
State v. Culbreathgreen2 sentences2010As to whether the trial court erred in denying Evans's motion for a mistrial: State v. Culbreath , 377 S.C. 326, 331 , 659 S.E.2d 268, 271 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Whether to grant or deny a mistrial motion is a matter within the trial court's sound discretion, and the court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law. . . . 2010As to whether the trial court erred in denying Evans's motion for a mistrial: State v. Culbreath , 377 S.C. 326, 331 , 659 S.E.2d 268, 271 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Whether to grant or deny a mistrial motion is a matter within the trial court's sound discretion, and the court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Gilliland v. Elmwood Propertiesgreen2 sentences1996Gilliland v. Elmwood Properties, 301 S.C. 295, 301 , 391 S.E.2d 577, 580 (1990) (citations omitted). 1996Gilliland v. Elmwood Properties, 301 S.C. 295, 301 , 391 S.E.2d 577, 580 (1990) (citations omitted). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2009Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 3 . 2009Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 3 . | 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.