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 1932–2026 2 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. Stanleygreen2 sentences2016See State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 33 , 615 S.E.2d 455, 460 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 377 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 793 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The less than lucid test is therefore declared to be whether the mistrial was dictated by manifest necessity or the ends of public justice." (quoting State v. Prince, 279 S.C. 30, 33 , 301 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1983))); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643, 658 , 623 S.E.2d 122, 129 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Generally, a curative instruction is deemed to have cured any a 2016See State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 33 , 615 S.E.2d 455, 460 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 377 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 793 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The less than lucid test is therefore declared to be whether the mistrial was dictated by manifest necessity or the ends of public justice." (quoting State v. Prince, 279 S.C. 30, 33 , 301 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1983))); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643, 658 , 623 S.E.2d 122, 129 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Generally, a curative instruction is deemed to have cured any a | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pinckneygreen2 sentences2026See State v. Buckmon, 347 S.C. 316, 321 , 555 S.E.2d 402, 404 (2001) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence of the offense charged."); State v. Pinckney, 339 S.C. 346, 349 , 529 S.E.2d 526, 527 (2000) ("In reviewing a refusal to grant a directed verdict, [an appellate court] must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determine whether there is any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence that reasonably tends to prove the defendant's guilt or from which his guilt may be logically deduced."); S.C. 2026See State v. Buckmon, 347 S.C. 316, 321 , 555 S.E.2d 402, 404 (2001) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence of the offense charged."); State v. Pinckney, 339 S.C. 346, 349 , 529 S.E.2d 526, 527 (2000) ("In reviewing a refusal to grant a directed verdict, [an appellate court] must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determine whether there is any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence that reasonably tends to prove the defendant's guilt or from which his guilt may be logically deduced."); S.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Buckmongreen2 sentences2026See State v. Buckmon, 347 S.C. 316, 321 , 555 S.E.2d 402, 404 (2001) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence of the offense charged."); State v. Pinckney, 339 S.C. 346, 349 , 529 S.E.2d 526, 527 (2000) ("In reviewing a refusal to grant a directed verdict, [an appellate court] must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determine whether there is any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence that reasonably tends to prove the defendant's guilt or from which his guilt may be logically deduced."); S.C. 2026See State v. Buckmon, 347 S.C. 316, 321 , 555 S.E.2d 402, 404 (2001) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence of the offense charged."); State v. Pinckney, 339 S.C. 346, 349 , 529 S.E.2d 526, 527 (2000) ("In reviewing a refusal to grant a directed verdict, [an appellate court] must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determine whether there is any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence that reasonably tends to prove the defendant's guilt or from which his guilt may be logically deduced."); S.C. | 1 | 1 |
Edmond v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) ("It is improper for the State to refer to or comment upon a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right."); State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528 , 530–31, 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996) (explaining the admission of comments on a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right is a trial error subject to harmless error analysis); Gill v. State, 346 S.C. 209, 221 , 552 S.E.2d 26, 33 (2001) ("[I]mproper comments on a defendant's failure to testify do not a 2022Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) ("It is improper for the State to refer to or comment upon a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right."); State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528 , 530–31, 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996) (explaining the admission of comments on a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right is a trial error subject to harmless error analysis); Gill v. State, 346 S.C. 209, 221 , 552 S.E.2d 26, 33 (2001) ("[I]mproper comments on a defendant's failure to testify do not a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pickensgreen2 sentences2022Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) ("It is improper for the State to refer to or comment upon a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right."); State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528 , 530–31, 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996) (explaining the admission of comments on a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right is a trial error subject to harmless error analysis); Gill v. State, 346 S.C. 209, 221 , 552 S.E.2d 26, 33 (2001) ("[I]mproper comments on a defendant's failure to testify do not a 2022Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) ("It is improper for the State to refer to or comment upon a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right."); State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528 , 530–31, 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996) (explaining the admission of comments on a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right is a trial error subject to harmless error analysis); Gill v. State, 346 S.C. 209, 221 , 552 S.E.2d 26, 33 (2001) ("[I]mproper comments on a defendant's failure to testify do not a | 1 | 1 |
Gill v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) ("It is improper for the State to refer to or comment upon a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right."); State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528 , 530–31, 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996) (explaining the admission of comments on a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right is a trial error subject to harmless error analysis); Gill v. State, 346 S.C. 209, 221 , 552 S.E.2d 26, 33 (2001) ("[I]mproper comments on a defendant's failure to testify do not a 2022Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) ("It is improper for the State to refer to or comment upon a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right."); State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528 , 530–31, 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996) (explaining the admission of comments on a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right is a trial error subject to harmless error analysis); Gill v. State, 346 S.C. 209, 221 , 552 S.E.2d 26, 33 (2001) ("[I]mproper comments on a defendant's failure to testify do not a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brisbongreen2 sentences2022Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) ("It is improper for the State to refer to or comment upon a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right."); State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528 , 530–31, 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996) (explaining the admission of comments on a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right is a trial error subject to harmless error analysis); Gill v. State, 346 S.C. 209, 221 , 552 S.E.2d 26, 33 (2001) ("[I]mproper comments on a defendant's failure to testify do not a 2022Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) ("It is improper for the State to refer to or comment upon a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right."); State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528 , 530–31, 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996) (explaining the admission of comments on a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right is a trial error subject to harmless error analysis); Gill v. State, 346 S.C. 209, 221 , 552 S.E.2d 26, 33 (2001) ("[I]mproper comments on a defendant's failure to testify do not a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Smith, 315 S.C. 547, 554 , 446 S.E.2d 411, 415 (1994) ("The substance of the law is what must be instructed to the jury, not any particular verbiage."); State v. Austin, 299 S.C. 456, 458 , 385 S.E.2d 830, 831 (1989) ("A request to charge a correct statement of the law on an issue raised by the indictment and the evidence presented at trial should not be refused."); id. ("However, if the trial j 2016See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Smith, 315 S.C. 547, 554 , 446 S.E.2d 411, 415 (1994) ("The substance of the law is what must be instructed to the jury, not any particular verbiage."); State v. Austin, 299 S.C. 456, 458 , 385 S.E.2d 830, 831 (1989) ("A request to charge a correct statement of the law on an issue raised by the indictment and the evidence presented at trial should not be refused."); id. ("However, if the trial j | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mattisongreen2 sentences2016See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Smith, 315 S.C. 547, 554 , 446 S.E.2d 411, 415 (1994) ("The substance of the law is what must be instructed to the jury, not any particular verbiage."); State v. Austin, 299 S.C. 456, 458 , 385 S.E.2d 830, 831 (1989) ("A request to charge a correct statement of the law on an issue raised by the indictment and the evidence presented at trial should not be refused."); id. ("However, if the trial j 2016See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Smith, 315 S.C. 547, 554 , 446 S.E.2d 411, 415 (1994) ("The substance of the law is what must be instructed to the jury, not any particular verbiage."); State v. Austin, 299 S.C. 456, 458 , 385 S.E.2d 830, 831 (1989) ("A request to charge a correct statement of the law on an issue raised by the indictment and the evidence presented at trial should not be refused."); id. ("However, if the trial j | 1 | 1 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 33 , 615 S.E.2d 455, 460 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 377 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 793 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The less than lucid test is therefore declared to be whether the mistrial was dictated by manifest necessity or the ends of public justice." (quoting State v. Prince, 279 S.C. 30, 33 , 301 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1983))); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643, 658 , 623 S.E.2d 122, 129 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Generally, a curative instruction is deemed to have cured any a 2016See State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 33 , 615 S.E.2d 455, 460 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 377 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 793 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The less than lucid test is therefore declared to be whether the mistrial was dictated by manifest necessity or the ends of public justice." (quoting State v. Prince, 279 S.C. 30, 33 , 301 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1983))); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643, 658 , 623 S.E.2d 122, 129 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Generally, a curative instruction is deemed to have cured any a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Adkinsgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Smith, 315 S.C. 547, 554 , 446 S.E.2d 411, 415 (1994) ("The substance of the law is what must be instructed to the jury, not any particular verbiage."); State v. Austin, 299 S.C. 456, 458 , 385 S.E.2d 830, 831 (1989) ("A request to charge a correct statement of the law on an issue raised by the indictment and the evidence presented at trial should not be refused."); id. ("However, if the trial j 2016See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Smith, 315 S.C. 547, 554 , 446 S.E.2d 411, 415 (1994) ("The substance of the law is what must be instructed to the jury, not any particular verbiage."); State v. Austin, 299 S.C. 456, 458 , 385 S.E.2d 830, 831 (1989) ("A request to charge a correct statement of the law on an issue raised by the indictment and the evidence presented at trial should not be refused."); id. ("However, if the trial j | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2016See State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 33 , 615 S.E.2d 455, 460 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 377 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 793 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The less than lucid test is therefore declared to be whether the mistrial was dictated by manifest necessity or the ends of public justice." (quoting State v. Prince, 279 S.C. 30, 33 , 301 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1983))); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643, 658 , 623 S.E.2d 122, 129 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Generally, a curative instruction is deemed to have cured any a 2016See State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 33 , 615 S.E.2d 455, 460 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 377 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 793 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The less than lucid test is therefore declared to be whether the mistrial was dictated by manifest necessity or the ends of public justice." (quoting State v. Prince, 279 S.C. 30, 33 , 301 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1983))); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643, 658 , 623 S.E.2d 122, 129 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Generally, a curative instruction is deemed to have cured any a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Austingreen2 sentences2016See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Smith, 315 S.C. 547, 554 , 446 S.E.2d 411, 415 (1994) ("The substance of the law is what must be instructed to the jury, not any particular verbiage."); State v. Austin, 299 S.C. 456, 458 , 385 S.E.2d 830, 831 (1989) ("A request to charge a correct statement of the law on an issue raised by the indictment and the evidence presented at trial should not be refused."); id. ("However, if the trial j 2016See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Smith, 315 S.C. 547, 554 , 446 S.E.2d 411, 415 (1994) ("The substance of the law is what must be instructed to the jury, not any particular verbiage."); State v. Austin, 299 S.C. 456, 458 , 385 S.E.2d 830, 831 (1989) ("A request to charge a correct statement of the law on an issue raised by the indictment and the evidence presented at trial should not be refused."); id. ("However, if the trial j | 1 | 1 |
State v. Princegreen2 sentences2016See State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 33 , 615 S.E.2d 455, 460 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 377 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 793 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The less than lucid test is therefore declared to be whether the mistrial was dictated by manifest necessity or the ends of public justice." (quoting State v. Prince, 279 S.C. 30, 33 , 301 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1983))); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643, 658 , 623 S.E.2d 122, 129 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Generally, a curative instruction is deemed to have cured any a 2016See State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 33 , 615 S.E.2d 455, 460 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 377 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 793 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The less than lucid test is therefore declared to be whether the mistrial was dictated by manifest necessity or the ends of public justice." (quoting State v. Prince, 279 S.C. 30, 33 , 301 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1983))); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643, 658 , 623 S.E.2d 122, 129 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Generally, a curative instruction is deemed to have cured any a | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences2022Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) ("It is improper for the State to refer to or comment upon a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right."); State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528 , 530–31, 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996) (explaining the admission of comments on a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right is a trial error subject to harmless error analysis); Gill v. State, 346 S.C. 209, 221 , 552 S.E.2d 26, 33 (2001) ("[I]mproper comments on a defendant's failure to testify do not a 2022Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) ("It is improper for the State to refer to or comment upon a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right."); State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528 , 530–31, 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996) (explaining the admission of comments on a defendant's exercise of a constitutional right is a trial error subject to harmless error analysis); Gill v. State, 346 S.C. 209, 221 , 552 S.E.2d 26, 33 (2001) ("[I]mproper comments on a defendant's failure to testify do not a | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Langley v. Boyter
green
2 sentences1998In Nelson , we adopted Chief Judge Sanders’s analysis of comparative negligence as stated in Langley v. Boyter, 284 S.C. 162 , 325 S.E.2d 550 (Ct.App.1984) opinion quashed on procedural grounds by 286 S.C. 85 , 332 S.E.2d 100 (1985). 1998In Nelson , we adopted Chief Judge Sanders’s analysis of comparative negligence as stated in Langley v. Boyter, 284 S.C. 162 , 325 S.E.2d 550 (Ct.App.1984) opinion quashed on procedural grounds by 286 S.C. 85 , 332 S.E.2d 100 (1985). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Langley v. Boyter
green
2 sentences1998In Nelson , we adopted Chief Judge Sanders’s analysis of comparative negligence as stated in Langley v. Boyter, 284 S.C. 162 , 325 S.E.2d 550 (Ct.App.1984) opinion quashed on procedural grounds by 286 S.C. 85 , 332 S.E.2d 100 (1985). 1998In Nelson , we adopted Chief Judge Sanders’s analysis of comparative negligence as stated in Langley v. Boyter, 284 S.C. 162 , 325 S.E.2d 550 (Ct.App.1984) opinion quashed on procedural grounds by 286 S.C. 85 , 332 S.E.2d 100 (1985). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Sanders v. Belue
green
1 sentence1994Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Witt, Rec'r v. Peoples State Bank of S.C.
neutral
2 sentences1932The dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice cites, the decree of Circuit Judge Ramage in the case of Witt, Receiver, v. People’s State Bank of South Carolina, 166 S. C., 1, 164 S. E., 306, 307 , as authority for the position he takes that the Act of 1930 is applicable to the Sanders claim. 1932The dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice cites, the decree of Circuit Judge Ramage in the case of Witt, Receiver, v. People’s State Bank of South Carolina, 166 S. C., 1, 164 S. E., 306, 307 , as authority for the position he takes that the Act of 1930 is applicable to the Sanders claim. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.