6 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilder Corp. v. Wilkegreen2 sentences2026See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Prioleau, 345 S.C. 404, 411 , 548 S.E.2d 213, 216 (2001) ("[A] party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal."). 2026See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Prioleau, 345 S.C. 404, 411 , 548 S.E.2d 213, 216 (2001) ("[A] party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Prioleaugreen2 sentences2026See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Prioleau, 345 S.C. 404, 411 , 548 S.E.2d 213, 216 (2001) ("[A] party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal."). 2026See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Prioleau, 345 S.C. 404, 411 , 548 S.E.2d 213, 216 (2001) ("[A] party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal."). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Widenergreen2 sentences2021See Smith, 397 S.C. at 473 , 724 S.E.2d at 191 ("[W]hen the prior settlement involves compensation for a different injury from the one tried to verdict, there is no setoff as a matter of law."). 2021See Smith, 397 S.C. at 473 , 724 S.E.2d at 191 ("[W]hen the prior settlement involves compensation for a different injury from the one tried to verdict, there is no setoff as a matter of law."). | 1 | 1 |
McElveen v. Ferregreen2 sentences2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Groomegreen2 sentences2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 | 1 | 1 |
Bowman v. Bowmangreen2 sentences2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Higginsgreen2 sentences2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Marcottegreen1 sentence2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lynngreen2 sentences2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 | 1 | 1 |
Nishitani v. Bakergreen1 sentence2004Because the DOT was not interested in asserting any rights in the matter, its substantial rights were not prejudiced by the lack of its presence at the post-trial hearing. [1] Brown v. Mickens , 256 S.C. 346, 348 , 182 S.E.2d 417, 417-18 (1971) (Generally, a party interested in resisting the relief sought by a motion has a right to notice sufficient to give him an opportunity to be heard.) (emphasis added); see Nishitani v. Baker , 921 P.2d 1182, 1192-93 (Haw. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Mickensgreen2 sentences2004Because the DOT was not interested in asserting any rights in the matter, its substantial rights were not prejudiced by the lack of its presence at the post-trial hearing. [1] Brown v. Mickens , 256 S.C. 346, 348 , 182 S.E.2d 417, 417-18 (1971) (Generally, a party interested in resisting the relief sought by a motion has a right to notice sufficient to give him an opportunity to be heard.) (emphasis added); see Nishitani v. Baker , 921 P.2d 1182, 1192-93 (Haw. 2004Because the DOT was not interested in asserting any rights in the matter, its substantial rights were not prejudiced by the lack of its presence at the post-trial hearing. [1] Brown v. Mickens , 256 S.C. 346, 348 , 182 S.E.2d 417, 417-18 (1971) (Generally, a party interested in resisting the relief sought by a motion has a right to notice sufficient to give him an opportunity to be heard.) (emphasis added); see Nishitani v. Baker , 921 P.2d 1182, 1192-93 (Haw. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc.
green
2 sentences2026We hold that to the extent Bower argues its unsuccessful claims were intertwined with its successful claims, this argument is not preserved for appellate 1 Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc., 307 S.C. 537 , 416 S.E.2d 211 (Ct. App. 1992), aff'd as modified, 310 S.C. 492 , 427 S.E.2d 659 (1993). review because at the post-trial hearing and in its motion for attorney's fees, Bower only argued that it was fully successful at trial and it raises the argument that its unsuccessful claims were related to its successful claims for the first time on appeal. 2026We hold that to the extent Bower argues its unsuccessful claims were intertwined with its successful claims, this argument is not preserved for appellate 1 Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc., 307 S.C. 537 , 416 S.E.2d 211 (Ct. App. 1992), aff'd as modified, 310 S.C. 492 , 427 S.E.2d 659 (1993). review because at the post-trial hearing and in its motion for attorney's fees, Bower only argued that it was fully successful at trial and it raises the argument that its unsuccessful claims were related to its successful claims for the first time on appeal. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc.
green
2 sentences2026We hold that to the extent Bower argues its unsuccessful claims were intertwined with its successful claims, this argument is not preserved for appellate 1 Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc., 307 S.C. 537 , 416 S.E.2d 211 (Ct. App. 1992), aff'd as modified, 310 S.C. 492 , 427 S.E.2d 659 (1993). review because at the post-trial hearing and in its motion for attorney's fees, Bower only argued that it was fully successful at trial and it raises the argument that its unsuccessful claims were related to its successful claims for the first time on appeal. 2026We hold that to the extent Bower argues its unsuccessful claims were intertwined with its successful claims, this argument is not preserved for appellate 1 Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc., 307 S.C. 537 , 416 S.E.2d 211 (Ct. App. 1992), aff'd as modified, 310 S.C. 492 , 427 S.E.2d 659 (1993). review because at the post-trial hearing and in its motion for attorney's fees, Bower only argued that it was fully successful at trial and it raises the argument that its unsuccessful claims were related to its successful claims for the first time on appeal. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Allen v. United States
green
2 sentences2010Dr. Crawford and the investigating officers testified that Appellant was apprised of his rights prior to these interviews pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896) (establishing the charge used to encourage a deadlocked jury to reach a verdict). [5] At a post-trial hearing, the trial judge denied all of defense counsel's motions. [6] In Hughes, this Court determined an Allen charge was an "even-handed admonition to both the minority and majority jurors" where it stated: "Ea 2010Dr. Crawford and the investigating officers testified that Appellant was apprised of his rights prior to these interviews pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896) (establishing the charge used to encourage a deadlocked jury to reach a verdict). [5] At a post-trial hearing, the trial judge denied all of defense counsel's motions. [6] In Hughes, this Court determined an Allen charge was an "even-handed admonition to both the minority and majority jurors" where it stated: "Ea | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2010Dr. Crawford and the investigating officers testified that Appellant was apprised of his rights prior to these interviews pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896) (establishing the charge used to encourage a deadlocked jury to reach a verdict). [5] At a post-trial hearing, the trial judge denied all of defense counsel's motions. [6] In Hughes, this Court determined an Allen charge was an "even-handed admonition to both the minority and majority jurors" where it stated: "Ea 2010Dr. Crawford and the investigating officers testified that Appellant was apprised of his rights prior to these interviews pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896) (establishing the charge used to encourage a deadlocked jury to reach a verdict). [5] At a post-trial hearing, the trial judge denied all of defense counsel's motions. [6] In Hughes, this Court determined an Allen charge was an "even-handed admonition to both the minority and majority jurors" where it stated: "Ea | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Hughes
green
2 sentences2010Dr. Crawford and the investigating officers testified that Appellant was apprised of his rights prior to these interviews pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896) (establishing the charge used to encourage a deadlocked jury to reach a verdict). [5] At a post-trial hearing, the trial judge denied all of defense counsel's motions. [6] In Hughes, this Court determined an Allen charge was an "even-handed admonition to both the minority and majority jurors" where it stated: "Ea 2010Dr. Crawford and the investigating officers testified that Appellant was apprised of his rights prior to these interviews pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896) (establishing the charge used to encourage a deadlocked jury to reach a verdict). [5] At a post-trial hearing, the trial judge denied all of defense counsel's motions. [6] In Hughes, this Court determined an Allen charge was an "even-handed admonition to both the minority and majority jurors" where it stated: "Ea | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Lyle
green
2 sentences2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 2007NOTES [1] We refer to the victim as John Doe and his older brother as Richard Roe to protect the identities of the minors involved. [2] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [3] Doe was not examined during the post-trial hearing as by then he and Roe had returned to their home out of state. [4] See Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160 , 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted) ("[A] party cannot complain when it receives the relief for which it has asked."). [5] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923). [6] See State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
James W. Menefield v. Robert G. Borg, Warden
green
1 sentence1998Menefield, supra. In United States v. Holmen, 586 F.2d 322 (4th Cir.1978) the court found it was error not to allow appellant to withdraw his waiver of counsel and have counsel appointed at the sentencing stage. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Leroy Frank Holmen, AKA Robert Ray Ramsey
green
1 sentence1998Menefield, supra. In United States v. Holmen, 586 F.2d 322 (4th Cir.1978) the court found it was error not to allow appellant to withdraw his waiver of counsel and have counsel appointed at the sentencing stage. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.