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 1995–2006 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. Burdettegreen2 sentences2005See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992); see also State v. Burdette, 335 S.C. 34, 45 , 515 S.E.2d 525, 531 (1999) (“excited utterance exception is firmly rooted in South Carolina law and satisfies the requirements of the Confrontation Clause”). 2005See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992); see also State v. Burdette, 335 S.C. 34, 45 , 515 S.E.2d 525, 531 (1999) (“excited utterance exception is firmly rooted in South Carolina law and satisfies the requirements of the Confrontation Clause”). | 3 | 3 |
White v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2005See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992); see also State v. Burdette, 335 S.C. 34, 45 , 515 S.E.2d 525, 531 (1999) (“excited utterance exception is firmly rooted in South Carolina law and satisfies the requirements of the Confrontation Clause”). 2005See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992); see also State v. Burdette, 335 S.C. 34, 45 , 515 S.E.2d 525, 531 (1999) (“excited utterance exception is firmly rooted in South Carolina law and satisfies the requirements of the Confrontation Clause”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ramseygreen2 sentences2001“In the interpretation of statutes, our sole function is to determine and, within constitutional limits, give effect to the intention of the legislature, with reference to the meaning of the language used and the subject matter and purpose of the statute.” State v. Ramsey, 311 S.C. 555, 561 , 430 S.E.2d 511, 515 (1993). 2001“In the interpretation of statutes, our sole function is to determine and, within constitutional limits, give effect to the intention of the legislature, with reference to the meaning of the language used and the subject matter and purpose of the statute.” State v. Ramsey, 311 S.C. 555, 561 , 430 S.E.2d 511, 515 (1993). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dennis
green
2 sentences2006Id. at 288 , 523 S.E.2d at 179 . 2006Id. at 288 , 523 S.E.2d at 179 . | 2 | 2000–2006 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2000Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). 2000Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Lilly v. Virginia
green
2 sentences2000Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 134 , 119 S.Ct. 1887, 1899 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999). 2000Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 134 , 119 S.Ct. 1887, 1899 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences1995State v. Williams, 285 S.C. 544 , 331 S.E. (2d) 354 (Ct. App. 1985); see also 23 C.J.S. 1995State v. Williams, 285 S.C. 544 , 331 S.E. (2d) 354 (Ct. App. 1985); see also 23 C.J.S. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.