6 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. STAHLNECKERgreen2 sentences2017See id. 2011When supported by context, “[a] party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine ..., but it must be clear the argument has been presented on that ground.” State v. Stahlnecker, 386 S.C. 609, 617 , 690 S.E.2d 565, 570 (2010). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Byersgreen2 sentences2017See State v. Byers , 392 S.C. 438 , 446, 710 S.E.2d 55 , 59 (2011) ("For an admissibility error to be preserved, the objection must include a specific ground 'if the specific ground was not apparent from the context.' " (quoting Rule 103(a)(1), SCRE )); In re Michael H. , 360 S.C. 540 , 546, 602 S.E.2d 729 , 732 (2004) ("In order to preserve an issue for appeal, it must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court. 2017See State v. Byers , 392 S.C. 438 , 446, 710 S.E.2d 55 , 59 (2011) ("For an admissibility error to be preserved, the objection must include a specific ground 'if the specific ground was not apparent from the context.' " (quoting Rule 103(a)(1), SCRE )); In re Michael H. , 360 S.C. 540 , 546, 602 S.E.2d 729 , 732 (2004) ("In order to preserve an issue for appeal, it must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court. | 1 | 1 |
Ellis Ex Rel. Ellis v. Olivergreen2 sentences1999See Ellis v. Oliver, 323 S.C. 121, 125 , 473 S.E.2d 793, 795 (1996) (In medical malpractice case, distinguishing the reasonable certainty requirement of an expert in stating his opinion from the most probable standard necessary to prove causation.); see also Mali v. Odom, 295 S.C. 78 , 367 S.E.2d 166 (Ct.App.1988) (holding estimates inadmissible as evidence of future lost profits because they made no reference to any particular standard of fixed estimation method or any operational history and therefore, were speculative). 1999See Ellis v. Oliver, 323 S.C. 121, 125 , 473 S.E.2d 793, 795 (1996) (In medical malpractice case, distinguishing the reasonable certainty requirement of an expert in stating his opinion from the most probable standard necessary to prove causation.); see also Mali v. Odom, 295 S.C. 78 , 367 S.E.2d 166 (Ct.App.1988) (holding estimates inadmissible as evidence of future lost profits because they made no reference to any particular standard of fixed estimation method or any operational history and therefore, were speculative). | 1 | 1 |
Mali v. Odomgreen2 sentences1999See Ellis v. Oliver, 323 S.C. 121, 125 , 473 S.E.2d 793, 795 (1996) (In medical malpractice case, distinguishing the reasonable certainty requirement of an expert in stating his opinion from the most probable standard necessary to prove causation.); see also Mali v. Odom, 295 S.C. 78 , 367 S.E.2d 166 (Ct.App.1988) (holding estimates inadmissible as evidence of future lost profits because they made no reference to any particular standard of fixed estimation method or any operational history and therefore, were speculative). 1999See Ellis v. Oliver, 323 S.C. 121, 125 , 473 S.E.2d 793, 795 (1996) (In medical malpractice case, distinguishing the reasonable certainty requirement of an expert in stating his opinion from the most probable standard necessary to prove causation.); see also Mali v. Odom, 295 S.C. 78 , 367 S.E.2d 166 (Ct.App.1988) (holding estimates inadmissible as evidence of future lost profits because they made no reference to any particular standard of fixed estimation method or any operational history and therefore, were speculative). | 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. Colf
green
2 sentences2024Brewton next argues the trial court did not conduct the admissibility analysis required by State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622 , 525 S.E.2d 246 (2000). 2024Brewton next argues the trial court did not conduct the admissibility analysis required by State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622 , 525 S.E.2d 246 (2000). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Michael H.
green
2 sentences2017See State v. Byers , 392 S.C. 438 , 446, 710 S.E.2d 55 , 59 (2011) ("For an admissibility error to be preserved, the objection must include a specific ground 'if the specific ground was not apparent from the context.' " (quoting Rule 103(a)(1), SCRE )); In re Michael H. , 360 S.C. 540 , 546, 602 S.E.2d 729 , 732 (2004) ("In order to preserve an issue for appeal, it must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court. 2017See State v. Byers , 392 S.C. 438 , 446, 710 S.E.2d 55 , 59 (2011) ("For an admissibility error to be preserved, the objection must include a specific ground 'if the specific ground was not apparent from the context.' " (quoting Rule 103(a)(1), SCRE )); In re Michael H. , 360 S.C. 540 , 546, 602 S.E.2d 729 , 732 (2004) ("In order to preserve an issue for appeal, it must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Sullivan
green
1 sentence1984Cfi State v. Sullivan, 277 S. C. 35, 282 S. E. (2d) 838 (1981). | 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.