protection afforded rule (South Carolina) · Go Syfert
← South Carolina issues

protection afforded rule in South Carolina

6 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1881–2025 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.

Followed or applied (8)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Ravenellgreen
scctapp · 2010 · cited in 4 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2011–2025
2 sentences

2025See State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C. 449, 456 , 692 S.E.2d 554, 558 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In order to claim the protection afforded by the rule of law that a criminal defendant may be tried in his absence only upon a trial court's finding that the defendant has received the requisite notice of his right to be present and advisement that the trial would proceed in his absence if he failed to attend, a defendant or his attorney must object at the first opportunity to do so, and failure to so object constitutes waiver of the issue on appeal."); see also id. ("The deliberate absence of a defendant who know

2025See State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C. 449, 456 , 692 S.E.2d 554, 558 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In order to claim the protection afforded by the rule of law that a criminal defendant may be tried in his absence only upon a trial court's finding that the defendant has received the requisite notice of his right to be present and advisement that the trial would proceed in his absence if he failed to attend, a defendant or his attorney must object at the first opportunity to do so, and failure to so object constitutes waiver of the issue on appeal."); see also id. ("The deliberate absence of a defendant who know

44
Ellis v. Stategreen
sc · 1976 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
2 sentences

2025See State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C. 449, 456 , 692 S.E.2d 554, 558 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In order to claim the protection afforded by the rule of law that a criminal defendant may be tried in his absence only upon a trial court's finding that the defendant has received the requisite notice of his right to be present and advisement that the trial would proceed in his absence if he failed to attend, a defendant or his attorney must object at the first opportunity to do so, and failure to so object constitutes waiver of the issue on appeal."); see also id. ("The deliberate absence of a defendant who know

2025See State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C. 449, 456 , 692 S.E.2d 554, 558 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In order to claim the protection afforded by the rule of law that a criminal defendant may be tried in his absence only upon a trial court's finding that the defendant has received the requisite notice of his right to be present and advisement that the trial would proceed in his absence if he failed to attend, a defendant or his attorney must object at the first opportunity to do so, and failure to so object constitutes waiver of the issue on appeal."); see also id. ("The deliberate absence of a defendant who know

11
State v. Policaogreen
scctapp · 2013 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the trial to proceed in Fincher's absence: State v. Policao, 402 S.C. 547, 556 , 741 S.E.2d 774, 778 (Ct. App. 2013) ("The general rule of issue preservation is if an issue was not raised to and ruled upon by the [trial] court, it will not be considered for the first time on appeal." (quoting State v. Porter, 389 S.C. 27, 37 , 698 S.E.2d 237, 242 (Ct. App. 2010))); In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92 , 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) ("A constitutional claim must be raised and ruled upon to be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C

2020As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the trial to proceed in Fincher's absence: State v. Policao, 402 S.C. 547, 556 , 741 S.E.2d 774, 778 (Ct. App. 2013) ("The general rule of issue preservation is if an issue was not raised to and ruled upon by the [trial] court, it will not be considered for the first time on appeal." (quoting State v. Porter, 389 S.C. 27, 37 , 698 S.E.2d 237, 242 (Ct. App. 2010))); In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92 , 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) ("A constitutional claim must be raised and ruled upon to be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C

11
State v. Portergreen
scctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the trial to proceed in Fincher's absence: State v. Policao, 402 S.C. 547, 556 , 741 S.E.2d 774, 778 (Ct. App. 2013) ("The general rule of issue preservation is if an issue was not raised to and ruled upon by the [trial] court, it will not be considered for the first time on appeal." (quoting State v. Porter, 389 S.C. 27, 37 , 698 S.E.2d 237, 242 (Ct. App. 2010))); In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92 , 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) ("A constitutional claim must be raised and ruled upon to be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C

2020As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the trial to proceed in Fincher's absence: State v. Policao, 402 S.C. 547, 556 , 741 S.E.2d 774, 778 (Ct. App. 2013) ("The general rule of issue preservation is if an issue was not raised to and ruled upon by the [trial] court, it will not be considered for the first time on appeal." (quoting State v. Porter, 389 S.C. 27, 37 , 698 S.E.2d 237, 242 (Ct. App. 2010))); In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92 , 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) ("A constitutional claim must be raised and ruled upon to be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C

11
In Re the Care & Treatment of McCrackengreen
sc · 2001 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the trial to proceed in Fincher's absence: State v. Policao, 402 S.C. 547, 556 , 741 S.E.2d 774, 778 (Ct. App. 2013) ("The general rule of issue preservation is if an issue was not raised to and ruled upon by the [trial] court, it will not be considered for the first time on appeal." (quoting State v. Porter, 389 S.C. 27, 37 , 698 S.E.2d 237, 242 (Ct. App. 2010))); In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92 , 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) ("A constitutional claim must be raised and ruled upon to be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C

2020As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the trial to proceed in Fincher's absence: State v. Policao, 402 S.C. 547, 556 , 741 S.E.2d 774, 778 (Ct. App. 2013) ("The general rule of issue preservation is if an issue was not raised to and ruled upon by the [trial] court, it will not be considered for the first time on appeal." (quoting State v. Porter, 389 S.C. 27, 37 , 698 S.E.2d 237, 242 (Ct. App. 2010))); In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92 , 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) ("A constitutional claim must be raised and ruled upon to be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C

11
State v. Kennerlygreen
scctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020As to whether the trial court erred by denying Fincher's motion for directed verdict regarding the burglary of Metric Road because the garage was not a dwelling: State v. Kinnerly, 331 S.C. 442, 455 , 503 S.E.2d 214, 221 (Ct. App. 1998) ("In reviewing a denial of directed verdict, issues not raised to the trial court in support of the directed verdict motion are not preserved for appellate review.

2020As to whether the trial court erred by denying Fincher's motion for directed verdict regarding the burglary of Metric Road because the garage was not a dwelling: State v. Kinnerly, 331 S.C. 442, 455 , 503 S.E.2d 214, 221 (Ct. App. 1998) ("In reviewing a denial of directed verdict, issues not raised to the trial court in support of the directed verdict motion are not preserved for appellate review.

11
State v. Dunbargreen
sc · 2003 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]."); State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C. 449, 456 , 692 S.E.2d 554, 558 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In order to claim the protection afforded by the rule of law that a criminal defendant may be tried in his absence only upon a trial court's finding that the defendant has received the requisite notice of his right to be present and advisement t

2015PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]."); State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C. 449, 456 , 692 S.E.2d 554, 558 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In order to claim the protection afforded by the rule of law that a criminal defendant may be tried in his absence only upon a trial court's finding that the defendant has received the requisite notice of his right to be present and advisement t

11
State v. Williamsgreen
sc · 1987 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010State v. Williams, 292 S.C. 231, 232 , 355 S.E.2d 861, 862 (1987).

2010State v. Williams, 292 S.C. 231, 232 , 355 S.E.2d 861, 862 (1987).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Rodermund v. . Clark green
ny · 1871
1 sentence

1881Any decisive act of that party, done with knowledge of his rights and of the fact, determines his election and makes an estoppel.” Bigelow on Estoppel 578; Rodurmond v. Clark, 46 N. Y. 354 ; Hyde v. Baldwin, 17 Pick. 303 ; Dewey v. Bell, 5 Allen (Mass.) 165; Hooper v. Hubbard, 7 Mass. 177 .

11881–1881

Where else courts name it

PA 22 (1966–2026) CT 13 (1963–2026) CA 11 (1958–2015) IL 8 (1945–2006) VA 7 (1987–2015) FL 7 (1987–2022) MO 6 (1977–2015) SC 6 (1881–2025) NY 5 (1968–1993) LA 5 (1975–2002) TX 5 (1991–2000) MD 4 (1964–1996) ND 4 (1968–1994) OR 4 (1991–2006) AL 4 (1988–2007) NM 4 (1981–1994) IA 4 (1987–2006) AK 3 (1981–1984) TN 3 (1981–2000) IN 3 (1987–2002) CO 3 (2006–2020) NC 3 (1979–1994) OK 2 (1927–1987) VT 2 (1997–2015) WY 2 (1993–2000) SD 2 (1961–1984) WA 2 (1981–2015) KS 2 (1974–1982) AZ 2 (1966–1988) MN 2 (1993–2007) MS 2 (1967–1984)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check