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 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Daves v. Clearygreen2 sentences2014See 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 |
Welch v. Epsteingreen2 sentences2014See 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 |
Collins-Plass Thayer Co. v. Hewlettgreen2 sentences2012It 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 |
Eaddy v. Jackson Beauty Supply Co.green2 sentences2012It 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 Construction of South Carolina, Inc.green2 sentences1998See 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 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Charles T. Jones v. Ridgely Communications Inc.
green
2 sentences2000Id. 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
2 sentences2000Id. 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
2 sentences1998See 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
2 sentences2014Moreover, 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
1 sentence2012“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 |