6 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1912–2006 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. Parkergreen2 sentences2006See State v. Parker , 249 S.C. 139, 141 , 153 S.E.2d 183, 184 (1967) (It is a fixed rule that the credibility of newly-discovered evidence offered in support of a motion for a new trial is a matter for determination by the [trial court] . . . [the trial court] not this court [has] the power to weigh such evidence.). 2006See State v. Parker , 249 S.C. 139, 141 , 153 S.E.2d 183, 184 (1967) (It is a fixed rule that the credibility of newly-discovered evidence offered in support of a motion for a new trial is a matter for determination by the [trial court] . . . [the trial court] not this court [has] the power to weigh such evidence.). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alderman v. Alderman
green
2 sentences1949Alderman v. Alderman, 178 S. C. 9, 181 S. E. 897 , 105 A. L. 1944It is a fixed rule that this Court will not disturb concurrent factual findings of the Master and trial Judge in an equity case unless such findings are without evidence to support them or are against the clear preponderance of the evidence, Alderman v. Alderman, 178 S. C., 9, 181 S. E., 897 , 105 A. L. | 2 | 1944–1949 |
Hoke v. Cherokee County
neutral
1 sentence1961Ham v. Mullins Lumber Co., 193 S. C. 66, 7 S. E. (2d) 712 ; Hoke v. Cherokee County, 216 S. C. 376, 58 S. E. (2d) 330 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Ham v. Mullins Lumber Co.
green
1 sentence1961Ham v. Mullins Lumber Co., 193 S. C. 66, 7 S. E. (2d) 712 ; Hoke v. Cherokee County, 216 S. C. 376, 58 S. E. (2d) 330 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
State v. Rhodes
neutral
1 sentence1934In the case of State v. Rhodes, 44 S. C., 325, 21 S. E., 807 , 22 S. E., 306 , this Court, considering a motion for new trial on after-discovered evidence, said: “We, however, avail ourselves of this opportunity to say that the universally recognized doctrine is that applications of this kind should be scrutinized with great caution, in order to avoid delays, and prevent any obstructions to the administration of justice. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Edwards v. Cottingham
green
1 sentence1934“It is the fixed rule that such motions are addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, and that the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed unless it appears that the discretion has been abused; that is to say, that it amounts to' an error of law.” Edwards v. Cottingham, 171 S. C., 131, 171 S. E., 621, 622 . | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Taylor v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.
neutral
1 sentence1912Authority for this will be found in Taylor v. Railroad Company, 81 S. C. 579, 62 S. E. 1113 , where Mr. Justice Woods, delivering the opinion of the Court, says: “The cases in this State are irreconcilable and there is a great contrariety of opinion on the subject in other jurisdic-. tions. * * * The important matter is to state a fixed rule on which the Courts and the Bar may rely. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.