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 1984–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
Benton v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2003See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969) (“[T]he double jeopardy prohibition of the Fifth Amendment represents a *214 fundamental ideal in our constitutional heritage, and ... should apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment”). 2003See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969) (“[T]he double jeopardy prohibition of the Fifth Amendment represents a *214 fundamental ideal in our constitutional heritage, and ... should apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment”). | 1 | 1 |
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicagogreen2 sentences1998See Chicago, B. & Q.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 , 17 S.Ct. 581 , 41 L.Ed. 979 (1897); Multi-Channel TV Cable Co. v. Charlottesville Quality Cable Corp., et al., 65 F.3d 1113 (4th Cir.1995). 1998See Chicago, B. & Q.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 , 17 S.Ct. 581 , 41 L.Ed. 979 (1897); Multi-Channel TV Cable Co. v. Charlottesville Quality Cable Corp., et al., 65 F.3d 1113 (4th Cir.1995). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Army Navy Bingo, Garrison 2196 v. Plowden
green
2 sentences2002Further, this Court found that “a tax does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause when its enforcement may result in destroying a particular business.” Army Navy Bingo, 281 S.C. at 229 , 314 S.E.2d at 340 . 2002Further, this Court found that “a tax does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause when its enforcement may result in destroying a particular business.” Army Navy Bingo, 281 S.C. at 229 , 314 S.E.2d at 340 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.
green
2 sentences2000Corp. v. *315 Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443 , 113 S.Ct. 2711 , 125 L.Ed.2d 366 (1993). 2000Corp. v. *315 Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443 , 113 S.Ct. 2711 , 125 L.Ed.2d 366 (1993). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
cluster 703994
green
1 sentence1998See Chicago, B. & Q.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 , 17 S.Ct. 581 , 41 L.Ed. 979 (1897); Multi-Channel TV Cable Co. v. Charlottesville Quality Cable Corp., et al., 65 F.3d 1113 (4th Cir.1995). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Carroll v. President & Commissioners of Princess Anne
green
2 sentences1998It does not even prohibit the videotape itself from being aired by the media; it merely restricts dissemination of the contents of the privileged communication itself, or the characterization of the contents. [1] See Mark P. Denbeaux, The First Word of the First Amendment, 80 Nw.U.L.Rev. 1156 (1986) (arguing that a First Amendment basis for striking down judicial prior restraints rests on a "shaky foundation" and that the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause would be the better source for restricting state courts in this regard). [2] The Supreme Court's first case involving a judicial prior 1998It does not even prohibit the videotape itself from being aired by the media; it merely restricts dissemination of the contents of the privileged communication itself, or the characterization of the contents. [1] See Mark P. Denbeaux, The First Word of the First Amendment, 80 Nw.U.L.Rev. 1156 (1986) (arguing that a First Amendment basis for striking down judicial prior restraints rests on a "shaky foundation" and that the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause would be the better source for restricting state courts in this regard). [2] The Supreme Court's first case involving a judicial prior | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Kent v. United States
green
2 sentences1998Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966) (discussing critical importance of fundamental due process and fair treatment afforded juveniles in waiver proceedings); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (recognizing adjudicatory hearing of delinquency in juvenile court should be governed by the basic procedural safeguards required by the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which includes the right to notice of charges, to counsel, to confrontation, to cross-examination and to privilege against self-incrimination); In re Winship, 397 1998Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966) (discussing critical importance of fundamental due process and fair treatment afforded juveniles in waiver proceedings); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (recognizing adjudicatory hearing of delinquency in juvenile court should be governed by the basic procedural safeguards required by the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which includes the right to notice of charges, to counsel, to confrontation, to cross-examination and to privilege against self-incrimination); In re Winship, 397 | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In Re GAULT
green
2 sentences1998Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966) (discussing critical importance of fundamental due process and fair treatment afforded juveniles in waiver proceedings); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (recognizing adjudicatory hearing of delinquency in juvenile court should be governed by the basic procedural safeguards required by the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which includes the right to notice of charges, to counsel, to confrontation, to cross-examination and to privilege against self-incrimination); In re Winship, 397 1998Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966) (discussing critical importance of fundamental due process and fair treatment afforded juveniles in waiver proceedings); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (recognizing adjudicatory hearing of delinquency in juvenile court should be governed by the basic procedural safeguards required by the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which includes the right to notice of charges, to counsel, to confrontation, to cross-examination and to privilege against self-incrimination); In re Winship, 397 | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences1998Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966) (discussing critical importance of fundamental due process and fair treatment afforded juveniles in waiver proceedings); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (recognizing adjudicatory hearing of delinquency in juvenile court should be governed by the basic procedural safeguards required by the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which includes the right to notice of charges, to counsel, to confrontation, to cross-examination and to privilege against self-incrimination); In re Winship, 397 1998Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966) (discussing critical importance of fundamental due process and fair treatment afforded juveniles in waiver proceedings); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (recognizing adjudicatory hearing of delinquency in juvenile court should be governed by the basic procedural safeguards required by the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which includes the right to notice of charges, to counsel, to confrontation, to cross-examination and to privilege against self-incrimination); In re Winship, 397 | 1 | 1998–1998 |
City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp.
green
2 sentences1984City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp., 417 U. S. 369 , 94 S. Ct. 2291 , 41 L. 1984City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp., 417 U. S. 369 , 94 S. Ct. 2291 , 41 L. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.