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 1981–2016 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. Herringgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 216 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 498 (2009) (noting the granting of a motion for a mistrial is an extreme measure to be taken only when an incident is so grievous that the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way, and a curative instruction to disregard the testimony is usually deemed to cure any alleged error). 2016See State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 216 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 498 (2009) (noting the granting of a motion for a mistrial is an extreme measure to be taken only when an incident is so grievous that the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way, and a curative instruction to disregard the testimony is usually deemed to cure any alleged error). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Dempseygreen2 sentences2014See State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 216 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 498 (2009) (noting a curative instruction to disregard the testimony is usually deemed to cure any alleged error); State v. Dempsey, 340 S.C. 565, 570 , 532 S.E.2d 306, 309 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding "a mistrial should not be ordered in every case where incompetent evidence is received and later stricken from the record," and noting an instruction 1 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 2 We are not convinced this testimony was inadmissible hearsay. 2014See State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 216 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 498 (2009) (noting a curative instruction to disregard the testimony is usually deemed to cure any alleged error); State v. Dempsey, 340 S.C. 565, 570 , 532 S.E.2d 306, 309 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding "a mistrial should not be ordered in every case where incompetent evidence is received and later stricken from the record," and noting an instruction 1 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 2 We are not convinced this testimony was inadmissible hearsay. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Elwellgreen2 sentences2014“The cardinal rule of statutory construction is a court must ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature.” State v. Elwell, 403 S.C. 606, 612 , 743 S.E.2d 802, 806 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2014“The cardinal rule of statutory construction is a court must ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature.” State v. Elwell, 403 S.C. 606, 612 , 743 S.E.2d 802, 806 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moydgreen2 sentences2013See Herring, 387 S.C. at 216 , 692 S.E.2d at 498 (noting a curative instruction to disregard the testimony is usually deemed to cure any alleged error); State v. Moyd, 321 S.C. 256, 263 , 468 S.E.2d 7, 11 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding a trial court should exhaust other available methods to cure prejudice before aborting a trial, and where the prejudicial effect is minimal, a mistrial need not be granted in every case where incompetent evidence is received and later stricken and a curative instruction is given). 2013See Herring, 387 S.C. at 216 , 692 S.E.2d at 498 (noting a curative instruction to disregard the testimony is usually deemed to cure any alleged error); State v. Moyd, 321 S.C. 256, 263 , 468 S.E.2d 7, 11 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding a trial court should exhaust other available methods to cure prejudice before aborting a trial, and where the prejudicial effect is minimal, a mistrial need not be granted in every case where incompetent evidence is received and later stricken and a curative instruction is given). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berkebile v. Outen
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 55 , 426 S.E.2d at 763 . 2015Id. at 55 , 426 S.E.2d at 763 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2014See State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 216 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 498 (2009) (noting a curative instruction to disregard the testimony is usually deemed to cure any alleged error); State v. Dempsey, 340 S.C. 565, 570 , 532 S.E.2d 306, 309 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding "a mistrial should not be ordered in every case where incompetent evidence is received and later stricken from the record," and noting an instruction 1 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 2 We are not convinced this testimony was inadmissible hearsay. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ouzts v. State Highway Department
neutral
2 sentences1981Ousts v. Highway Department , 161 S.C. 21 , 159 S.E. 457 (1931). 1981Ousts v. Highway Department , 161 S.C. 21 , 159 S.E. 457 (1931). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.