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.
6 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1953–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hewinsgreen1 sentence2017See State v. Hewins, supra at 118-119, 760 S.E.2d at 827 (2014) (Pleicones, C.J., dissenting from majority’s decision to rule on merits of a suppression motion on appeal). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Romanus v. BIGGS
neutral
2 sentences1958The recent case of Caulder v. Skipper, 228 S. C. 606, 91 S. E. (2d) 321 , 323 states the true rule as being that “a voluntary nonsuit should be granted in the absence of a *301 showing of legal prejudice to the defendants, and the discretion of the hearing Judge thereabout is brought to play only upon a showing that legal prejudice would result from the granting of the motion for a nonsuit.” Romanus v. Biggs, 217 S. C. 77, 59 S. E. (2d) 645 ; Wildhagen v. Ayers, supra. No legal prejudice being shown, refusal of Appellant’s motion that she be granted a nonsuit without prejudice constituted an a 1956Romanus v. Biggs, 217 S. C. 77, 59 S. E. (2d) 645 ; Wildhagen v. Ayers, supra. Ground two was eliminated by the hearing Judge as being too indefinite, and the Order is based upon grounds- one, three, and four, the conditions of which naturally flow from respondents’ liability to another suit and do not constitute legal prejudice. | 2 | 1956–1958 |
WILDHAGEN v. Ayers
neutral
2 sentences1958The recent case of Caulder v. Skipper, 228 S. C. 606, 91 S. E. (2d) 321 , 323 states the true rule as being that “a voluntary nonsuit should be granted in the absence of a *301 showing of legal prejudice to the defendants, and the discretion of the hearing Judge thereabout is brought to play only upon a showing that legal prejudice would result from the granting of the motion for a nonsuit.” Romanus v. Biggs, 217 S. C. 77, 59 S. E. (2d) 645 ; Wildhagen v. Ayers, supra. No legal prejudice being shown, refusal of Appellant’s motion that she be granted a nonsuit without prejudice constituted an a 1956Romanus v. Biggs, 217 S. C. 77, 59 S. E. (2d) 645 ; Wildhagen v. Ayers, supra. Ground two was eliminated by the hearing Judge as being too indefinite, and the Order is based upon grounds- one, three, and four, the conditions of which naturally flow from respondents’ liability to another suit and do not constitute legal prejudice. | 2 | 1956–1958 |
Johnson v. South Carolina National Bank
green
2 sentences2013“If there are no common factual issues, it is within the trial judge’s discretion which claim will be tried first.” Johnson, 292 S.C. at 56 , 354 S.E.2d at 897 . 2013“If there are no common factual issues, it is within the trial judge’s discretion which claim will be tried first.” Johnson, 292 S.C. at 56 , 354 S.E.2d at 897 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Caulder v. SKIPPER
neutral
1 sentence1958The recent case of Caulder v. Skipper, 228 S. C. 606, 91 S. E. (2d) 321 , 323 states the true rule as being that “a voluntary nonsuit should be granted in the absence of a *301 showing of legal prejudice to the defendants, and the discretion of the hearing Judge thereabout is brought to play only upon a showing that legal prejudice would result from the granting of the motion for a nonsuit.” Romanus v. Biggs, 217 S. C. 77, 59 S. E. (2d) 645 ; Wildhagen v. Ayers, supra. No legal prejudice being shown, refusal of Appellant’s motion that she be granted a nonsuit without prejudice constituted an a | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Bruner v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1955Co., S. C., 84 S. E. (2d) 557 , 560, which reaffirm the-reluctance of this court to reverse the result of the exercise of the discretion of the hearing court in such cases. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Griffin v. Owens
neutral
1 sentence1953Moreover, the disposition of such a motion is within the discretion of the hearing court and the exercise of it will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion unless it is, in the words of the opinion in Griffin v. Owens, 171 S. C. 276, 172 S. E. 221, 222 , “so opposed to a sound discretion as to amount to a deprivation of the legal rights of the complaining party.” See also Wade v. Southern Ry. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Wade v. Southern Ry. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1953Co., 186 S. C. 265, 195 S. E. 560 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.