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 1931–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jenkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2026The Fourth Circuit rejected the argument that the Supreme Court overturned the Remmer presumption of prejudice attached to extrajudicial communications with the jury, declaring the presumption remained "[a]live and well in the Fourth Circuit." Lawson, 677 F.3d at 642 ; see Barnes, 751 F.3d at 243 (noting "the Remmer presumption is clearly established federal law . . . even after the Supreme Court's decisions in Phillips and Olano"); Barnes, 751 F.3d at 246 (concluding North Carolina state court's "adjudication of Barnes'[s] juror misconduct claim" without allowing a hearing on the claim or fol | 1 | 1 |
William Barnes v. Carlton Joynergreen2 sentences2026The Fourth Circuit rejected the argument that the Supreme Court overturned the Remmer presumption of prejudice attached to extrajudicial communications with the jury, declaring the presumption remained "[a]live and well in the Fourth Circuit." Lawson, 677 F.3d at 642 ; see Barnes, 751 F.3d at 243 (noting "the Remmer presumption is clearly established federal law . . . even after the Supreme Court's decisions in Phillips and Olano"); Barnes, 751 F.3d at 246 (concluding North Carolina state court's "adjudication of Barnes'[s] juror misconduct claim" without allowing a hearing on the claim or fol 2026The Fourth Circuit rejected the argument that the Supreme Court overturned the Remmer presumption of prejudice attached to extrajudicial communications with the jury, declaring the presumption remained "[a]live and well in the Fourth Circuit." Lawson, 677 F.3d at 642 ; see Barnes, 751 F.3d at 243 (noting "the Remmer presumption is clearly established federal law . . . even after the Supreme Court's decisions in Phillips and Olano"); Barnes, 751 F.3d at 246 (concluding North Carolina state court's "adjudication of Barnes'[s] juror misconduct claim" without allowing a hearing on the claim or fol | 1 | 1 |
Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.green2 sentences2017See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (providing this Court need not address remaining issues when disposition of prior issue is dispositive of the appeal). 2017See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (providing this Court need not address remaining issues when disposition of prior issue is dispositive of the appeal). | 1 | 1 |
Murdock v. Murdockgreen2 sentences2002Murdock v. Murdock, 338 S.C. 322, 333 , 526 S.E.2d 241, 248 (Ct.App.1999) (finding family court erred in addressing issue of debt allocation where the husband did not receive notice that the issue would be addressed at the hearing on a rule to show cause for failure to pay child support). 2002Murdock v. Murdock, 338 S.C. 322, 333 , 526 S.E.2d 241, 248 (Ct.App.1999) (finding family court erred in addressing issue of debt allocation where the husband did not receive notice that the issue would be addressed at the hearing on a rule to show cause for failure to pay child support). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Meinhard v. Youngblood
green
2 sentences1931Proc. 1922), may grant such temporary injunction upon an ex parte application and without notice ( Watson v. Bank , 5 S.C. 159 ; Jordan v. Wilson, supra ), except where specifically required by statute (Sections 484, 485, Code of Civil Procedure 1922), in cases relating to injunctions to stay certain sales and when allowed after answer ( Meinhard v. Youngblood , 37 S.C. 227 , 15 S.E., 947 ; Andrews v. Real Estate Company, supra ). 1931Prop. 1922), may grant such temporary injunction upon an ex parte application and without notice (Watson v. Bank, 5 S. C., 159; Jordan v. Wilson, supra), except where specifically required by statute (Sections 484, 485, Code of Civil Procedure 1922), in cases relating to injunctions.to stay certain sales and when allowed after answer (Meinhard v. Youngblood, 37 S. C., 227, 15 S. E., 947 ; Andrews v. Real Estate Company, supra). | 2 | 1931–1931 |
Kelly v. Tiner
green
2 sentences1931If the order of the Circuit Judge served with the summons and complaint on the petitioners should even be regarded in effect such temporary injunction as is contemplated under Sections 482, 483, 484, 486, 487, 489, 490 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1922 and as distinguished from a mere restraining order pending the hearing of a rule to show cause, such as provided for in Sections 484 and 487 of the Code, there can be no question that under numerous decisions in this State the Circuit Judge has full power and jurisdiction at chambers ( Andrews v. Real Estate Company , 87 S.C. 307 , 69 S.E., 60 1931If the order of the Circuit Judge served with the summons and complaint on the petitioners should even be regarded in effect such temporary injunction as is contemplated under Sections 482, 483, 484, 486, 487, 489, 490 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1922 and as distinguished from a mere restraining order pending the hearing of a rule to show cause, such as provided for in Sections 484 and 487 of the Code, there can be no question that under numerous decisions in this State the Circuit Judge has full power and jurisdiction at chambers (Andrews v. Real Estate Company, 87 S. C., 307, 69 S. E., 60 | 2 | 1931–1931 |
Jordan v. Wilson
green
2 sentences1931If the order of the Circuit Judge served with the summons and complaint on the petitioners should even be regarded in effect such temporary injunction as is contemplated under Sections 482, 483, 484, 486, 487, 489, 490 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1922 and as distinguished from a mere restraining order pending the hearing of a rule to show cause, such as provided for in Sections 484 and 487 of the Code, there can be no question that under numerous decisions in this State the Circuit Judge has full power and jurisdiction at chambers ( Andrews v. Real Estate Company , 87 S.C. 307 , 69 S.E., 60 1931If the order of the Circuit Judge served with the summons and complaint on the petitioners should even be regarded in effect such temporary injunction as is contemplated under Sections 482, 483, 484, 486, 487, 489, 490 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1922 and as distinguished from a mere restraining order pending the hearing of a rule to show cause, such as provided for in Sections 484 and 487 of the Code, there can be no question that under numerous decisions in this State the Circuit Judge has full power and jurisdiction at chambers (Andrews v. Real Estate Company, 87 S. C., 307, 69 S. E., 60 | 2 | 1931–1931 |
Andrews v. Sumter Commercial & Real Estate Co.
neutral
2 sentences1931If the order of the Circuit Judge served with the summons and complaint on the petitioners should even be regarded in effect such temporary injunction as is contemplated under Sections 482, 483, 484, 486, 487, 489, 490 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1922 and as distinguished from a mere restraining order pending the hearing of a rule to show cause, such as provided for in Sections 484 and 487 of the Code, there can be no question that under numerous decisions in this State the Circuit Judge has full power and jurisdiction at chambers ( Andrews v. Real Estate Company , 87 S.C. 307 , 69 S.E., 60 1931If the order of the Circuit Judge served with the summons and complaint on the petitioners should even be regarded in effect such temporary injunction as is contemplated under Sections 482, 483, 484, 486, 487, 489, 490 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1922 and as distinguished from a mere restraining order pending the hearing of a rule to show cause, such as provided for in Sections 484 and 487 of the Code, there can be no question that under numerous decisions in this State the Circuit Judge has full power and jurisdiction at chambers (Andrews v. Real Estate Company, 87 S. C., 307, 69 S. E., 60 | 2 | 1931–1931 |
Montgomery v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1931If the order of the Circuit Judge served with the summons and complaint on the petitioners should even be regarded in effect such temporary injunction as is contemplated under Sections 482, 483, 484, 486, 487, 489, 490 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1922 and as distinguished from a mere restraining order pending the hearing of a rule to show cause, such as provided for in Sections 484 and 487 of the Code, there can be no question that under numerous decisions in this State the Circuit Judge has full power and jurisdiction at chambers ( Andrews v. Real Estate Company , 87 S.C. 307 , 69 S.E., 60 1931If the order of the Circuit Judge served with the summons and complaint on the petitioners should even be regarded in effect such temporary injunction as is contemplated under Sections 482, 483, 484, 486, 487, 489, 490 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1922 and as distinguished from a mere restraining order pending the hearing of a rule to show cause, such as provided for in Sections 484 and 487 of the Code, there can be no question that under numerous decisions in this State the Circuit Judge has full power and jurisdiction at chambers (Andrews v. Real Estate Company, 87 S. C., 307, 69 S. E., 60 | 2 | 1931–1931 |
cluster 509297
green
1 sentence2026The Fourth Circuit explained the Remmer presumption applies in cases where "the danger is not one of juror impairment or predisposition, but rather the effect of an extraneous communication upon the deliberative process of the jury." Barnes, 751 F.3d at 242 (quoting Stockton, 852 F.2d at 744 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
United States v. Lawson
green
1 sentence2026The Fourth Circuit rejected the argument that the Supreme Court overturned the Remmer presumption of prejudice attached to extrajudicial communications with the jury, declaring the presumption remained "[a]live and well in the Fourth Circuit." Lawson, 677 F.3d at 642 ; see Barnes, 751 F.3d at 243 (noting "the Remmer presumption is clearly established federal law . . . even after the Supreme Court's decisions in Phillips and Olano"); Barnes, 751 F.3d at 246 (concluding North Carolina state court's "adjudication of Barnes'[s] juror misconduct claim" without allowing a hearing on the claim or fol | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Lee v. Lee
green
2 sentences2018Lee v. Lee , 251 S.C. 533 , 534, 164 S.E.2d 308 , 308 (1968) (holding an action for an accounting to determine whether the guardian received improper compensation was in equity). 2018Lee v. Lee , 251 S.C. 533 , 534, 164 S.E.2d 308 , 308 (1968) (holding an action for an accounting to determine whether the guardian received improper compensation was in equity). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Brown v. Carolina Midland Ry. Co.
green
1 sentence1949Finally, claimant contends that she was entitled to notice of denial of liability and a hearing on her claim and cites in support of this contention Halks v. Rust Engineering Co. et al., 208 S. C. 39, 36 S. E. (2d) 852 , where it was held that a'claim for compensation properly pending before the Industrial Commission should not be dismissed without notice and an opportunity afforded for a hearing. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Merrick Et Al. v. N. W. Halsey & Company Et Al., and the Weis Fibre Container Corporation
green
1 sentence1931Proc. 1922), may grant such temporary injunction upon an ex parte application and without notice ( Watson v. Bank , 5 S.C. 159 ; Jordan v. Wilson, supra ), except where specifically required by statute (Sections 484, 485, Code of Civil Procedure 1922), in cases relating to injunctions to stay certain sales and when allowed after answer ( Meinhard v. Youngblood , 37 S.C. 227 , 15 S.E., 947 ; Andrews v. Real Estate Company, supra ). | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Watson v. Citizens' Savings Bank
neutral
1 sentence1931Proc. 1922), may grant such temporary injunction upon an ex parte application and without notice ( Watson v. Bank , 5 S.C. 159 ; Jordan v. Wilson, supra ), except where specifically required by statute (Sections 484, 485, Code of Civil Procedure 1922), in cases relating to injunctions to stay certain sales and when allowed after answer ( Meinhard v. Youngblood , 37 S.C. 227 , 15 S.E., 947 ; Andrews v. Real Estate Company, supra ). | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Northrop v. Simpson
neutral
1 sentence1931If the order of the Circuit Judge served with the summons and complaint on the petitioners should even be regarded in effect such temporary injunction as is contemplated under Sections 482, 483, 484, 486, 487, 489, 490 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1922 and as distinguished from a mere restraining order pending the hearing of a rule to show cause, such as provided for in Sections 484 and 487 of the Code, there can be no question that under numerous decisions in this State the Circuit Judge has full power and jurisdiction at chambers ( Andrews v. Real Estate Company , 87 S.C. 307 , 69 S.E., 60 | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.