requested charge is reversible error in South Carolina

6 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2014 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Welch v. Epsteingreen scctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279, 311 , 536 S.E.2d 408, 425 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating that when reviewing a jury charge for error, the appellate court must review the charge as a whole considering evidence and issues presented); Daves v. Cleary, 355 S.C. 216, 224 , 584 S.E.2d 423, 427 (Ct. App. 2003) (providing the court's refusal to give a requested charge is reversible error only if the requesting party can show prejudice from the refusal). 2014See Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279, 311 , 536 S.E.2d 408, 425 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating that when reviewing a jury charge for error, the appellate court must review the charge as a whole considering evidence and issues presented); Daves v. Cleary, 355 S.C. 216, 224 , 584 S.E.2d 423, 427 (Ct. App. 2003) (providing the court's refusal to give a requested charge is reversible error only if the requesting party can show prejudice from the refusal).	1	1
Daves v. Clearygreen scctapp · 2003 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279, 311 , 536 S.E.2d 408, 425 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating that when reviewing a jury charge for error, the appellate court must review the charge as a whole considering evidence and issues presented); Daves v. Cleary, 355 S.C. 216, 224 , 584 S.E.2d 423, 427 (Ct. App. 2003) (providing the court's refusal to give a requested charge is reversible error only if the requesting party can show prejudice from the refusal). 2014See Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279, 311 , 536 S.E.2d 408, 425 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating that when reviewing a jury charge for error, the appellate court must review the charge as a whole considering evidence and issues presented); Daves v. Cleary, 355 S.C. 216, 224 , 584 S.E.2d 423, 427 (Ct. App. 2003) (providing the court's refusal to give a requested charge is reversible error only if the requesting party can show prejudice from the refusal).	1	1
Eaddy v. Jackson Beauty Supply Co.green sc · 1964 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012It is the court’s duty to instruct the jury on the law, and “[t]he jury ought not to be left to cut a way through the woods with no compass to guide it.” Collins-Plass Thayer Co. v. Hewlett, 109 S.C. 245, 253-54 , 95 S.E. 510, 513 (1918), cited in Eaddy v. Jackson Beauty Supply Co., 244 S.C. 256, 259 , 136 S.E.2d 297, 298 (1964). 2012It is the court’s duty to instruct the jury on the law, and “[t]he jury ought not to be left to cut a way through the woods with no compass to guide it.” Collins-Plass Thayer Co. v. Hewlett, 109 S.C. 245, 253-54 , 95 S.E. 510, 513 (1918), cited in Eaddy v. Jackson Beauty Supply Co., 244 S.C. 256, 259 , 136 S.E.2d 297, 298 (1964).	1	1
Collins-Plass Thayer Co. v. Hewlettgreen · 1918 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012It is the court’s duty to instruct the jury on the law, and “[t]he jury ought not to be left to cut a way through the woods with no compass to guide it.” Collins-Plass Thayer Co. v. Hewlett, 109 S.C. 245, 253-54 , 95 S.E. 510, 513 (1918), cited in Eaddy v. Jackson Beauty Supply Co., 244 S.C. 256, 259 , 136 S.E.2d 297, 298 (1964). 2012It is the court’s duty to instruct the jury on the law, and “[t]he jury ought not to be left to cut a way through the woods with no compass to guide it.” Collins-Plass Thayer Co. v. Hewlett, 109 S.C. 245, 253-54 , 95 S.E. 510, 513 (1918), cited in Eaddy v. Jackson Beauty Supply Co., 244 S.C. 256, 259 , 136 S.E.2d 297, 298 (1964).	1	1
Fernanders v. MARKS CONST. OF SC, INC.green scctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 2 sentences 1998See also Fernanders v. Marks Constr. of South Carolina, Inc., 330 S.C. 470 , 499 S.E.2d 509 (Ct.App.1998) (a trial judge is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina; ordinarily, a trial judge has a duty to give a requested instruction that correctly states the law applicable to the issues and evidence); Brawn v. Smalls, 325 S.C. 547 , 481 S.E.2d 444 (Ct.App.1997) (a trial judge is required to charge the current and correct law, and ordinarily has a duty to give a requested instruction that correctly states the law applicable to the issues and evidence; when general 1998See also Fernanders v. Marks Constr. of South Carolina, Inc., 330 S.C. 470 , 499 S.E.2d 509 (Ct.App.1998) (a trial judge is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina; ordinarily, a trial judge has a duty to give a requested instruction that correctly states the law applicable to the issues and evidence); Brawn v. Smalls, 325 S.C. 547 , 481 S.E.2d 444 (Ct.App.1997) (a trial judge is required to charge the current and correct law, and ordinarily has a duty to give a requested instruction that correctly states the law applicable to the issues and evidence; when general	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Charles T. Jones v. Ridgely Communications Inc. green sc · 1991 2 sentences 2000Id. at 555 , 481 S.E.2d at 449 (citing Jones v. Ridgely Communications, Inc., 304 S.C. 452 , 405 S.E.2d 402 (1991)); Burns v. South Carolina Comm’n for the Blind, 323 S.C. 77 , 448 S.E.2d 589 (Ct.App.1994). 2000Id. at 555 , 481 S.E.2d at 449 (citing Jones v. Ridgely Communications, Inc., 304 S.C. 452 , 405 S.E.2d 402 (1991)); Burns v. South Carolina Comm’n for the Blind, 323 S.C. 77 , 448 S.E.2d 589 (Ct.App.1994).	3	1994–2000
Burns v. South Carolina Commission for the Blind green scctapp · 1994 2 sentences 2000Id. at 555 , 481 S.E.2d at 449 (citing Jones v. Ridgely Communications, Inc., 304 S.C. 452 , 405 S.E.2d 402 (1991)); Burns v. South Carolina Comm’n for the Blind, 323 S.C. 77 , 448 S.E.2d 589 (Ct.App.1994). 2000Id. at 555 , 481 S.E.2d at 449 (citing Jones v. Ridgely Communications, Inc., 304 S.C. 452 , 405 S.E.2d 402 (1991)); Burns v. South Carolina Comm’n for the Blind, 323 S.C. 77 , 448 S.E.2d 589 (Ct.App.1994).	2	1997–2000
Brown v. Smalls green scctapp · 1997 2 sentences 1998See also Fernanders v. Marks Constr. of South Carolina, Inc., 330 S.C. 470 , 499 S.E.2d 509 (Ct.App.1998) (a trial judge is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina; ordinarily, a trial judge has a duty to give a requested instruction that correctly states the law applicable to the issues and evidence); Brawn v. Smalls, 325 S.C. 547 , 481 S.E.2d 444 (Ct.App.1997) (a trial judge is required to charge the current and correct law, and ordinarily has a duty to give a requested instruction that correctly states the law applicable to the issues and evidence; when general 1998See also Fernanders v. Marks Constr. of South Carolina, Inc., 330 S.C. 470 , 499 S.E.2d 509 (Ct.App.1998) (a trial judge is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina; ordinarily, a trial judge has a duty to give a requested instruction that correctly states the law applicable to the issues and evidence); Brawn v. Smalls, 325 S.C. 547 , 481 S.E.2d 444 (Ct.App.1997) (a trial judge is required to charge the current and correct law, and ordinarily has a duty to give a requested instruction that correctly states the law applicable to the issues and evidence; when general	2	1998–2000
Stokes ex rel. Estate of Stokes v. Spartanburg Regional Medical Center green scctapp · 2006 2 sentences 2014Moreover, we find Stokes v. Spartanburg Regional Medical Ctr., 368 S.C. 515 , 629 S.E.2d 675 (Ct. App. 2006), distinguishable because in that case the evidence destroyed was medical records, subject to the rules of discovery, whereas here no evidence was presented that any medical record of the bowel was ever created or later destroyed. 2014Moreover, we find Stokes v. Spartanburg Regional Medical Ctr., 368 S.C. 515 , 629 S.E.2d 675 (Ct. App. 2006), distinguishable because in that case the evidence destroyed was medical records, subject to the rules of discovery, whereas here no evidence was presented that any medical record of the bowel was ever created or later destroyed.	1	2014–2014
Ross v. Paddy green scctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2012“Moreover, when general instructions to the jury are insufficient to enable the jury to understand fully the law of the case and issues involved, a refusal to give a requested charge is reversible error.” Id.	1	2012–2012

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check