abuse of discretion standard in South Carolina

2026See Gray, 438 S.C. at 141, 882 S.E.2d at 475 ("A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." (alterations in original) (quoting Jones, 416 S.C. at 290, 786 S.E.2d at 136)); see also Marshall, 428 S.C. at 18 , 832 S.E.2d at 621-22 ("A circuit court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an error of law, or when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); McCarty, 437 S.C. at 369, 878 S.E.2d at 909 (holding

2026See Gray, 438 S.C. at 141, 882 S.E.2d at 475 ("A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." (alterations in original) (quoting Jones, 416 S.C. at 290, 786 S.E.2d at 136)); see also Marshall, 428 S.C. at 18 , 832 S.E.2d at 621-22 ("A circuit court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an error of law, or when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); McCarty, 437 S.C. at 369, 878 S.E.2d at 909 (holding

2024"We review a trial court's decision regarding Rule 403 pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard and are obligated to give great deference to the trial court's judgment." State v. Collins, 409 S.C. 524, 534 , 763 S.E.2d 22, 28 (2014) (quoting State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 378 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 794 (Ct. App. 2003)).

2024"We review a trial court's decision regarding Rule 403 pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard and are obligated to give great deference to the trial court's judgment." State v. Collins, 409 S.C. 524, 534 , 763 S.E.2d 22, 28 (2014) (quoting State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 378 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 794 (Ct. App. 2003)).

2026See State v. Johnson, 413 S.C. 458, 467 , 776 S.E.2d 367, 371 (2015) ("Credibility findings are treated as factual findings, and therefore, the appellate inquiry is limited to reviewing whether the trial court's factual findings are supported by any evidence in the record."); State v. Oates, 421 S.C. 1, 13 , 803 S.E.2d 911, 918 (Ct. App. 2017) ("In other words, the abuse of discretion standard of review does not allow this court to reweigh the evidence or second-guess the [circuit] court's assessment of witness credibility." (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Douglas, 411 S.C. 307, 316

2026See State v. Johnson, 413 S.C. 458, 467 , 776 S.E.2d 367, 371 (2015) ("Credibility findings are treated as factual findings, and therefore, the appellate inquiry is limited to reviewing whether the trial court's factual findings are supported by any evidence in the record."); State v. Oates, 421 S.C. 1, 13 , 803 S.E.2d 911, 918 (Ct. App. 2017) ("In other words, the abuse of discretion standard of review does not allow this court to reweigh the evidence or second-guess the [circuit] court's assessment of witness credibility." (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Douglas, 411 S.C. 307, 316

2025See Stoney, 422 S.C. at 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d at 486 n.2 (explaining appellate courts review the family court's procedural and evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard).

2024See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d 486 , 486 n.2 (2018) (stating an appellate court reviews the family court's evidentiary or procedural rulings using an abuse of discretion standard).

2026ANALYSIS "A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Gray, 438 S.C. 130 , 141, 882 S.E.2d 469 , 475 (Ct. App. 2022) (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 290, 786 S.E.2d 132 , 136 (2016)).

2026ANALYSIS "A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Gray, 438 S.C. 130 , 141, 882 S.E.2d 469 , 475 (Ct. App. 2022) (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 290, 786 S.E.2d 132 , 136 (2016)).

2022Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC, 394 S.C. 97, 104 , 713 S.E.2d 650, 653 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The determination of whether attorney's fees should be awarded under Rule 11 or under the [Frivolous Civil Proceedings] Act is treated as one in equity."); In re Beard, 359 S.C. 351 , 357, 597 S.E.2d 835 , 838 (Ct. App. 2004) ("In an action in equity tried by a judge alone, the appellate court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence."); Ex parte Gregory, 378 S.C. 430 , 437, 663 S.E.2d 46, 50 (2008) ("However, the abuse of discretion standard pl

2022Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC, 394 S.C. 97, 104 , 713 S.E.2d 650, 653 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The determination of whether attorney's fees should be awarded under Rule 11 or under the [Frivolous Civil Proceedings] Act is treated as one in equity."); In re Beard, 359 S.C. 351 , 357, 597 S.E.2d 835 , 838 (Ct. App. 2004) ("In an action in equity tried by a judge alone, the appellate court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence."); Ex parte Gregory, 378 S.C. 430 , 437, 663 S.E.2d 46, 50 (2008) ("However, the abuse of discretion standard pl

2025Morris v. BB&T Corp., 438 S.C. 582 , 586, 885 S.E.2d 394 , 396 (2023); see also State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 91 , 708 S.E.2d 750, 753 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006))); State v. Collins, 409 S.C. 524, 534 , 763 S.E.2d 22, 28 (2014) ("We review a trial court's decision regarding Rule 403 pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard and are obligated to give great deference to the trial court's judgment." (citation omitt

2025Morris v. BB&T Corp., 438 S.C. 582 , 586, 885 S.E.2d 394 , 396 (2023); see also State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 91 , 708 S.E.2d 750, 753 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006))); State v. Collins, 409 S.C. 524, 534 , 763 S.E.2d 22, 28 (2014) ("We review a trial court's decision regarding Rule 403 pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard and are obligated to give great deference to the trial court's judgment." (citation omitt

2025See State v. Hunsberger, 418 S.C. 335, 342 , 794 S.E.2d 368, 371 (2016) ("The trial court's ruling on a motion for speedy trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard."); id. at 342 , 794 S.E.2d at 371-72 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's decision is based on an error of law or upon factual findings that are without evidentiary support."); State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 549 , 647 S.E.2d 144, 155 (2007) ("In determining whether a defendant has been deprived of the right to a speedy trial, the court must consider four factors: 1) length of the delay; 2) reason for the

2025See State v. Hunsberger, 418 S.C. 335, 342 , 794 S.E.2d 368, 371 (2016) ("The trial court's ruling on a motion for speedy trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard."); id. at 342 , 794 S.E.2d at 371-72 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's decision is based on an error of law or upon factual findings that are without evidentiary support."); State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 549 , 647 S.E.2d 144, 155 (2007) ("In determining whether a defendant has been deprived of the right to a speedy trial, the court must consider four factors: 1) length of the delay; 2) reason for the

2025See State v. Robinson, 426 S.C. 579, 591 , 828 S.E.2d 203, 209 (2019) ("In criminal cases, appellate courts sit to review errors of law only."); see also State v. Torres, 390 S.C. 618, 625 , 703 S.E.2d 226, 230 (2010) ("The appellate court reviews a trial [court]'s ruling on admissibility of evidence pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard and gives great deference to the trial court."); State v. Bryant, 372 S.C. 305, 312 , 642 S.E.2d 582, 586 (2007) ("The conduct of a criminal trial is left largely to the sound discretion of the trial [court], [which] will not be reversed in the absence o

2025See State v. Robinson, 426 S.C. 579, 591 , 828 S.E.2d 203, 209 (2019) ("In criminal cases, appellate courts sit to review errors of law only."); see also State v. Torres, 390 S.C. 618, 625 , 703 S.E.2d 226, 230 (2010) ("The appellate court reviews a trial [court]'s ruling on admissibility of evidence pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard and gives great deference to the trial court."); State v. Bryant, 372 S.C. 305, 312 , 642 S.E.2d 582, 586 (2007) ("The conduct of a criminal trial is left largely to the sound discretion of the trial [court], [which] will not be reversed in the absence o

2026Firm, P.A. v. Makawi, 396 S.C. 290, 294-95 , 721 S.E.2d 430, 432 (2012) ("The trial court's findings of fact regarding validity of service of process are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard."); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 629 , 576 S.E.2d 156, 165 (2003) ("When service is challenged, the record must affirmatively show that service of process was correctly made."); McClurg v. Deaton, 380 S.C. 563, 579 , 671 S.E.2d 87, 96 (Ct. App. 2008) ("[I]n order to establish that service has been properly effected, the plaintiff need only show compliance with the civil rules on service of pro

2026Firm, P.A. v. Makawi, 396 S.C. 290, 294-95 , 721 S.E.2d 430, 432 (2012) ("The trial court's findings of fact regarding validity of service of process are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard."); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 629 , 576 S.E.2d 156, 165 (2003) ("When service is challenged, the record must affirmatively show that service of process was correctly made."); McClurg v. Deaton, 380 S.C. 563, 579 , 671 S.E.2d 87, 96 (Ct. App. 2008) ("[I]n order to establish that service has been properly effected, the plaintiff need only show compliance with the civil rules on service of pro

2016An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law."); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 48 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) ("This [c]ourt reviews [Rule 403, SCRE,] rulings pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard, and gives great deference to the trial [court]'s decision.").

2016An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law."); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 48 , 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) ("This [c]ourt reviews [Rule 403, SCRE,] rulings pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard, and gives great deference to the trial [court]'s decision.").

2023We therefore affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013) ("A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [an appellate] court reviews under an abuse of discretion standard of review."); State v. Oakes, 421 S.C. 1, 13 , 803 S.E.2d 911, 918 (Ct. App. 2017) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the [circuit] court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); State v.

2023We therefore affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013) ("A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [an appellate] court reviews under an abuse of discretion standard of review."); State v. Oakes, 421 S.C. 1, 13 , 803 S.E.2d 911, 918 (Ct. App. 2017) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the [circuit] court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); State v.

2021Servs., 353 S.C. 254, 261 , 578 S.E.2d 11, 14 (2003) ("[W]here the appellate court agrees with the trial court's findings of fact, it reviews the decision to award sanctions, as well as the terms of those sanctions, under an abuse of discretion standard."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is controlled by an error of law or is based on unsupported factual conclusions."). 2.

2021Servs., 353 S.C. 254, 261 , 578 S.E.2d 11, 14 (2003) ("[W]here the appellate court agrees with the trial court's findings of fact, it reviews the decision to award sanctions, as well as the terms of those sanctions, under an abuse of discretion standard."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is controlled by an error of law or is based on unsupported factual conclusions."). 2.

2005Rule 403, SCRE, says otherwise admissible evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . .” “Unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis.” Kennedy v. Griffin , 358 S.C. 122, 127 , 595 S.E.2d 248 , 250 (Ct. App. 2004). “A trial judge’s decision regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence should be reversed only in ‘exceptional circumstances.’” State v. Hamilton , 344 S.C. 344, 357 , 543 S.E.2d 586, 593 (Ct. App. 2001). “We review a trial court’s decision

2005Rule 403, SCRE, says otherwise admissible evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . .” “Unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis.” Kennedy v. Griffin , 358 S.C. 122, 127 , 595 S.E.2d 248 , 250 (Ct. App. 2004). “A trial judge’s decision regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence should be reversed only in ‘exceptional circumstances.’” State v. Hamilton , 344 S.C. 344, 357 , 543 S.E.2d 586, 593 (Ct. App. 2001). “We review a trial court’s decision

2026See State v. Johnson, 413 S.C. 458, 467 , 776 S.E.2d 367, 371 (2015) ("Credibility findings are treated as factual findings, and therefore, the appellate inquiry is limited to reviewing whether the trial court's factual findings are supported by any evidence in the record."); State v. Oates, 421 S.C. 1, 13 , 803 S.E.2d 911, 918 (Ct. App. 2017) ("In other words, the abuse of discretion standard of review does not allow this court to reweigh the evidence or second-guess the [circuit] court's assessment of witness credibility." (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Douglas, 411 S.C. 307, 316

2026See State v. Johnson, 413 S.C. 458, 467 , 776 S.E.2d 367, 371 (2015) ("Credibility findings are treated as factual findings, and therefore, the appellate inquiry is limited to reviewing whether the trial court's factual findings are supported by any evidence in the record."); State v. Oates, 421 S.C. 1, 13 , 803 S.E.2d 911, 918 (Ct. App. 2017) ("In other words, the abuse of discretion standard of review does not allow this court to reweigh the evidence or second-guess the [circuit] court's assessment of witness credibility." (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Douglas, 411 S.C. 307, 316

2026Lee, 373 S.C. at 658 , 647 S.E.2d at 199 ("An appellate court reviews Rule 403 [of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence] rulings pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard and gives great deference to the trial court."); Johnson v. Sam Eng.

2026Lee, 373 S.C. at 658 , 647 S.E.2d at 199 ("An appellate court reviews Rule 403 [of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence] rulings pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard and gives great deference to the trial court."); Johnson v. Sam Eng.

2023See Ware v. Ware, 404 S.C. 1, 10 , 743 S.E.2d 817, 822 (2013) ("The decision to deny or grant a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b), SCRCP is within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); Sanders v. Smith, 431 S.C. 605 , 611, 848 S.E.2d 604 , 607 (Ct. App. 2020) (stating this court reviews such a decision under an abuse of discretion standard); Ware, 404 S.C. at 10 , 743 S.E.2d at 822 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the order of the court is controlled by an error of law or where the order is based on factual findings that are without evidentiary support."); Perry v. Heirs at L. of Ga

2023See Ware v. Ware, 404 S.C. 1, 10 , 743 S.E.2d 817, 822 (2013) ("The decision to deny or grant a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b), SCRCP is within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); Sanders v. Smith, 431 S.C. 605 , 611, 848 S.E.2d 604 , 607 (Ct. App. 2020) (stating this court reviews such a decision under an abuse of discretion standard); Ware, 404 S.C. at 10 , 743 S.E.2d at 822 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the order of the court is controlled by an error of law or where the order is based on factual findings that are without evidentiary support."); Perry v. Heirs at L. of Ga

2022Coast Builders, 394 S.C. at 104 , 713 S.E.2d at 654 ("Under the abuse of discretion standard, the imposition of sanctions will not be disturbed on appeal unless the decision is controlled by an error of law or is based on unsupported factual conclusions."); Runyon v. Wright, 322 S.C. 15, 19 , 471 S.E.2d 160, 162 (1996) ("Under [Rule 11(a), SCRCP], a party and/or the party's attorney may be sanctioned for filing a frivolous pleading, motion, or other paper, or for making frivolous arguments."); id. ("The sanction may include an order to pay the reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred by t

2022Coast Builders, 394 S.C. at 104 , 713 S.E.2d at 654 ("Under the abuse of discretion standard, the imposition of sanctions will not be disturbed on appeal unless the decision is controlled by an error of law or is based on unsupported factual conclusions."); Runyon v. Wright, 322 S.C. 15, 19 , 471 S.E.2d 160, 162 (1996) ("Under [Rule 11(a), SCRCP], a party and/or the party's attorney may be sanctioned for filing a frivolous pleading, motion, or other paper, or for making frivolous arguments."); id. ("The sanction may include an order to pay the reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred by t

2025See State v. McLeod, 362 S.C. 73, 81 , 606 S.E.2d 215, 220 (Ct. App. 2004) ("A trial [court]'s decision regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence should be reversed only in exceptional circumstances."); id. at 81-82 , 606 S.E.2d at 220 ("[This court] review[s] a trial [court]'s decision regarding Rule 403 pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard and [is] obligated to give great deference to the trial court's judgment.").

2025See State v. McLeod, 362 S.C. 73, 81 , 606 S.E.2d 215, 220 (Ct. App. 2004) ("A trial [court]'s decision regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence should be reversed only in exceptional circumstances."); id. at 81-82 , 606 S.E.2d at 220 ("[This court] review[s] a trial [court]'s decision regarding Rule 403 pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard and [is] obligated to give great deference to the trial court's judgment.").

2018As to Issue 1: State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013) ("A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [the appellate] court reviews under an abuse of discretion standard of review."); Semken v. Semken, 379 S.C. 71, 75 , 664 S.E.2d 493, 496 (Ct. App. 2008) ("A preponderance of the evidence stated simply is that evidence which convinces as to its truth."); State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 570 , 647 S.E.2d 144 , 166–67 (2007) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the [circuit] court's ruling is based

2018As to Issue 1: State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013) ("A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [the appellate] court reviews under an abuse of discretion standard of review."); Semken v. Semken, 379 S.C. 71, 75 , 664 S.E.2d 493, 496 (Ct. App. 2008) ("A preponderance of the evidence stated simply is that evidence which convinces as to its truth."); State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 570 , 647 S.E.2d 144 , 166–67 (2007) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the [circuit] court's ruling is based

2026See State v. Hunsberger, 418 S.C. 335, 342 , 794 S.E.2d 368, 371 (2016) ("The trial court's ruling on a motion for speedy trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard."); id. at 342 , 794 S.E.2d at 371-72 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's decision is based on an error of law or upon factual findings that are without evidentiary support.").

2026See State v. Hunsberger, 418 S.C. 335, 342 , 794 S.E.2d 368, 371 (2016) ("The trial court's ruling on a motion for speedy trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard."); id. at 342 , 794 S.E.2d at 371-72 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's decision is based on an error of law or upon factual findings that are without evidentiary support.").

2021See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d 486 , 486 n.2 (2018) (stating appellate courts review the "family court's evidentiary or procedural rulings . . . using an abuse of discretion standard"); Broom v. Jennifer J., 403 S.C. 96, 115 , 742 S.E.2d 382, 391 (2013) (stating "the admission or exclusion of evidence is within the trial judge's discretion[,] and to warrant reversal[,] an appellant must show both abuse of discretion and prejudice"); Kramer v. Kramer, 323 S.C. 212, 217 , 473 S.E.2d 846, 848 (Ct. App. 1996) ("[T]he rules of discovery were designed to promote the full ex

2021See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d 486 , 486 n.2 (2018) (stating appellate courts review the "family court's evidentiary or procedural rulings . . . using an abuse of discretion standard"); Broom v. Jennifer J., 403 S.C. 96, 115 , 742 S.E.2d 382, 391 (2013) (stating "the admission or exclusion of evidence is within the trial judge's discretion[,] and to warrant reversal[,] an appellant must show both abuse of discretion and prejudice"); Kramer v. Kramer, 323 S.C. 212, 217 , 473 S.E.2d 846, 848 (Ct. App. 1996) ("[T]he rules of discovery were designed to promote the full ex

2025Morris v. BB&T Corp., 438 S.C. 582 , 586, 885 S.E.2d 394 , 396 (2023); see also State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 91 , 708 S.E.2d 750, 753 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006))); State v. Collins, 409 S.C. 524, 534 , 763 S.E.2d 22, 28 (2014) ("We review a trial court's decision regarding Rule 403 pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard and are obligated to give great deference to the trial court's judgment." (citation omitt

2025Morris v. BB&T Corp., 438 S.C. 582 , 586, 885 S.E.2d 394 , 396 (2023); see also State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 91 , 708 S.E.2d 750, 753 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006))); State v. Collins, 409 S.C. 524, 534 , 763 S.E.2d 22, 28 (2014) ("We review a trial court's decision regarding Rule 403 pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard and are obligated to give great deference to the trial court's judgment." (citation omitt

2022See Sanders v. Smith, 431 S.C. 605 , 611, 848 S.E.2d 604 , 607 (Ct. App. 2020) ("The family court has discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b) and [an appellate court] review[s] such decisions using an abuse of discretion standard."); Rule 60(b)(1) ("On motion and upon such terms as are just, the [family] court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."); Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 646-47 , 506 S.E.2d 526, 535 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[W]hen an order from t

2022See Sanders v. Smith, 431 S.C. 605 , 611, 848 S.E.2d 604 , 607 (Ct. App. 2020) ("The family court has discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b) and [an appellate court] review[s] such decisions using an abuse of discretion standard."); Rule 60(b)(1) ("On motion and upon such terms as are just, the [family] court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."); Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 646-47 , 506 S.E.2d 526, 535 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[W]hen an order from t

2026See State v. Lyles, 379 S.C. 328, 339 , 665 S.E.2d 201, 207 (Ct. App. 2008) ("We review a trial court's decision regarding Rule 403 [of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence] pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard and are obligated to give great deference to the trial court's judgment."); Rule 401, SCRE (stating evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence"); Rule 403, SCRE ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its prob

2026See State v. Lyles, 379 S.C. 328, 339 , 665 S.E.2d 201, 207 (Ct. App. 2008) ("We review a trial court's decision regarding Rule 403 [of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence] pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard and are obligated to give great deference to the trial court's judgment."); Rule 401, SCRE (stating evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence"); Rule 403, SCRE ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its prob

2024See State v. Wallace, 440 S.C. 537 , 541, 892 S.E.2d 310 , 312 (2023) ("We review a trial court's ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence—when the ruling is based on the South Carolina Rules of Evidence—under an abuse of discretion standard."); State v. Jones, 423 S.C. 631, 636 , 817 S.E.2d 268, 270 (2018) ("A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony constitutes an abuse of discretion where the ruling is unsupported by the evidence or controlled by an error of law."); Wallace, 440 S.C. at 544, 892 S.E.2d at 313 ("To admit expert testimony under Rule 702, the propo

2024See State v. Wallace, 440 S.C. 537 , 541, 892 S.E.2d 310 , 312 (2023) ("We review a trial court's ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence—when the ruling is based on the South Carolina Rules of Evidence—under an abuse of discretion standard."); State v. Jones, 423 S.C. 631, 636 , 817 S.E.2d 268, 270 (2018) ("A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony constitutes an abuse of discretion where the ruling is unsupported by the evidence or controlled by an error of law."); Wallace, 440 S.C. at 544, 892 S.E.2d at 313 ("To admit expert testimony under Rule 702, the propo

2021Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011); Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 595 n.2, 813 S.E.2d 486 , 487 n.2 (2018) ("Lewis did not address the standard for reviewing a family court's evidentiary or procedural rulings, which we review using an abuse of discretion standard.").

2021Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011); Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 595 n.2, 813 S.E.2d 486 , 487 n.2 (2018) ("Lewis did not address the standard for reviewing a family court's evidentiary or procedural rulings, which we review using an abuse of discretion standard.").