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 1 courts 2000–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Manuelgreen2 sentences2005Most jurisdictions are leaning toward the idea that “Crawford [left] the Roberts approach untouched with respect *33 to nontestimonial statements.” United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2004); see also Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 84 (1st Cir.2004) (“Thus, unless Christian’s statements qualify as ‘testimonial,’ Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts continues to apply.”); State v. Manuel, 275 Wis.2d 146 , 685 N.W.2d 525, 533 (Ct.App.2004), review granted, 276 Wis.2d 26 , 689 N.W.2d 55 (2004) (“[W]e proceed, in an abundance of caution, to analyze Manuel’s confrontation clause claim u 2005Most jurisdictions are leaning toward the idea that “Crawford [left] the Roberts approach untouched with respect *33 to nontestimonial statements.” United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2004); see also Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 84 (1st Cir.2004) (“Thus, unless Christian’s statements qualify as ‘testimonial,’ Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts continues to apply.”); State v. Manuel, 275 Wis.2d 146 , 685 N.W.2d 525, 533 (Ct.App.2004), review granted, 276 Wis.2d 26 , 689 N.W.2d 55 (2004) (“[W]e proceed, in an abundance of caution, to analyze Manuel’s confrontation clause claim u | 2 | 2 |
Horton v. Allengreen2 sentences2005Most jurisdictions are leaning toward the idea that “Crawford [left] the Roberts approach untouched with respect *33 to nontestimonial statements.” United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2004); see also Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 84 (1st Cir.2004) (“Thus, unless Christian’s statements qualify as ‘testimonial,’ Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts continues to apply.”); State v. Manuel, 275 Wis.2d 146 , 685 N.W.2d 525, 533 (Ct.App.2004), review granted, 276 Wis.2d 26 , 689 N.W.2d 55 (2004) (“[W]e proceed, in an abundance of caution, to analyze Manuel’s confrontation clause claim u 2005Most jurisdictions are leaning toward the idea that “Crawford [left] the Roberts approach untouched with respect *33 to nontestimonial statements.” United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2004); see also Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 84 (1st Cir.2004) (“Thus, unless Christian’s statements qualify as ‘testimonial,’ Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts continues to apply.”); State v. Manuel, 275 Wis.2d 146 , 685 N.W.2d 525, 533 (Ct.App.2004), review granted, 276 Wis.2d 26 , 689 N.W.2d 55 (2004) (“[W]e proceed, in an abundance of caution, to analyze Manuel’s confrontation clause claim u | 2 | 2 |
United States v. James Saget, Also Known as Heshgreen2 sentences2005Most jurisdictions are leaning toward the idea that “Crawford [left] the Roberts approach untouched with respect *33 to nontestimonial statements.” United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2004); see also Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 84 (1st Cir.2004) (“Thus, unless Christian’s statements qualify as ‘testimonial,’ Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts continues to apply.”); State v. Manuel, 275 Wis.2d 146 , 685 N.W.2d 525, 533 (Ct.App.2004), review granted, 276 Wis.2d 26 , 689 N.W.2d 55 (2004) (“[W]e proceed, in an abundance of caution, to analyze Manuel’s confrontation clause claim u 2005Most jurisdictions are leaning toward the idea that “Crawford [left] the Roberts approach untouched with respect *33 to nontestimonial statements.” United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2004); see also Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 84 (1st Cir.2004) (“Thus, unless Christian’s statements qualify as ‘testimonial,’ Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts continues to apply.”); State v. Manuel, 275 Wis.2d 146 , 685 N.W.2d 525, 533 (Ct.App.2004), review granted, 276 Wis.2d 26 , 689 N.W.2d 55 (2004) (“[W]e proceed, in an abundance of caution, to analyze Manuel’s confrontation clause claim u | 2 | 2 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2014It determined “[t]he Roberts test allow[ed] a jury to hear evidence, untested by the adversary process, based on a mere judicial determination of reliability,” and it “replace[d] the constitutionally prescribed method of assessing reliability with a wholly foreign one.” Id. at 62 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . 2014It determined “[t]he Roberts test allow[ed] a jury to hear evidence, untested by the adversary process, based on a mere judicial determination of reliability,” and it “replace[d] the constitutionally prescribed method of assessing reliability with a wholly foreign one.” Id. at 62 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . | 1 | 3 |
Christensen v. Mikellgreen2 sentences2014See Christensen v. Mikell, 324 S.C. 70, 72 , 476 S.E.2d 692, 694 (1996) ("Summary judgment is appropriate where it is clear there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."). 2. 2014See Christensen v. Mikell, 324 S.C. 70, 72 , 476 S.E.2d 692, 694 (1996) ("Summary judgment is appropriate where it is clear there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."). 2. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Roberts
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 339 , 713 S.E.2d at 281 . 2014Id. at 339 , 713 S.E.2d at 281 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Cannon
neutral
2 sentences2000Upon Roberts’s motion, the trial court suppressed the drugs pursuant to South Carolina Code Section 16-25-70 (Supp.1999) and State v. Cannon, 329 S.C. 163 , 495 S.E.2d 218 (Ct.App.1997), rev’d, 336 S.C. 335 , 520 S.E.2d 317 (1999). 2000Upon Roberts’s motion, the trial court suppressed the drugs pursuant to South Carolina Code Section 16-25-70 (Supp.1999) and State v. Cannon, 329 S.C. 163 , 495 S.E.2d 218 (Ct.App.1997), rev’d, 336 S.C. 335 , 520 S.E.2d 317 (1999). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Cannon
green
2 sentences2000Upon Roberts’s motion, the trial court suppressed the drugs pursuant to South Carolina Code Section 16-25-70 (Supp.1999) and State v. Cannon, 329 S.C. 163 , 495 S.E.2d 218 (Ct.App.1997), rev’d, 336 S.C. 335 , 520 S.E.2d 317 (1999). 2000Upon Roberts’s motion, the trial court suppressed the drugs pursuant to South Carolina Code Section 16-25-70 (Supp.1999) and State v. Cannon, 329 S.C. 163 , 495 S.E.2d 218 (Ct.App.1997), rev’d, 336 S.C. 335 , 520 S.E.2d 317 (1999). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.