44 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1942–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clark v. Cantrellgreen2 sentences2023Accordingly, a refusal to give a requested instruction stating a sound principle of law applicable to the case at hand constitutes reversible error only when "the principle is not otherwise included in the charge." Clark, 339 S.C. at 390 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 . 2023Accordingly, a refusal to give a requested instruction stating a sound principle of law applicable to the case at hand constitutes reversible error only when "the principle is not otherwise included in the charge." Clark, 339 S.C. at 390 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 . | 6 | 11 |
State v. Pittmangreen2 sentences2026"The refusal to grant a requested jury charge that states a sound principle of law applicable to the case at hand is an error of law." Pittman, 373 S.C. at 570 , 647 S.E.2d at 167 . 2026"The refusal to grant a requested jury charge that states a sound principle of law applicable to the case at hand is an error of law." Pittman, 373 S.C. at 570 , 647 S.E.2d at 167 . | 6 | 8 |
State v. Brandtgreen2 sentences2023See Clark, 339 S.C. at 389 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a requested instruction which states a sound principle of law when that principle applies to the case at hand, and the principle is not otherwise included in the charge." (emphasis added)); State v. Marin, 415 S.C. 475, 482 , 783 S.E.2d 808, 812 (2016) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial." (quoting State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011))); id. ("The substance of t 2023See Clark, 339 S.C. at 389 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a requested instruction which states a sound principle of law when that principle applies to the case at hand, and the principle is not otherwise included in the charge." (emphasis added)); State v. Marin, 415 S.C. 475, 482 , 783 S.E.2d 808, 812 (2016) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial." (quoting State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011))); id. ("The substance of t | 5 | 5 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2022"It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a requested instruction [that] states a sound principle of law when that principle applies to the case at hand, and the principle is not otherwise included in the charge." State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549-50 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) (quoting State v. Williams, 367 S.C. 192, 195 , 624 S.E.2d 443, 445 (Ct. App. 2005)). 2022"It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a requested instruction [that] states a sound principle of law when that principle applies to the case at hand, and the principle is not otherwise included in the charge." State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549-50 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) (quoting State v. Williams, 367 S.C. 192, 195 , 624 S.E.2d 443, 445 (Ct. App. 2005)). | 4 | 4 |
Sanders Ex Rel. Parris v. Western Auto Supply Co.green2 sentences2019Auto Supply Co., 256 S.C. 490, 497 , 183 S.E.2d 321, 325 (1971))); RFT Mgmt. 2019Auto Supply Co., 256 S.C. 490, 497 , 183 S.E.2d 321, 325 (1971))); RFT Mgmt. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2023See Clark, 339 S.C. at 389 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a requested instruction which states a sound principle of law when that principle applies to the case at hand, and the principle is not otherwise included in the charge." (emphasis added)); State v. Marin, 415 S.C. 475, 482 , 783 S.E.2d 808, 812 (2016) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial." (quoting State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011))); id. ("The substance of t 2023See Clark, 339 S.C. at 389 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a requested instruction which states a sound principle of law when that principle applies to the case at hand, and the principle is not otherwise included in the charge." (emphasis added)); State v. Marin, 415 S.C. 475, 482 , 783 S.E.2d 808, 812 (2016) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial." (quoting State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011))); id. ("The substance of t | 2 | 2 |
State v. Maringreen2 sentences2023See Clark, 339 S.C. at 389 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a requested instruction which states a sound principle of law when that principle applies to the case at hand, and the principle is not otherwise included in the charge." (emphasis added)); State v. Marin, 415 S.C. 475, 482 , 783 S.E.2d 808, 812 (2016) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial." (quoting State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011))); id. ("The substance of t 2023See Clark, 339 S.C. at 389 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a requested instruction which states a sound principle of law when that principle applies to the case at hand, and the principle is not otherwise included in the charge." (emphasis added)); State v. Marin, 415 S.C. 475, 482 , 783 S.E.2d 808, 812 (2016) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial." (quoting State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011))); id. ("The substance of t | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mattisongreen2 sentences2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); id. at 390 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a reque 2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); id. at 390 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a reque | 2 | 2 |
State v. Adkinsgreen2 sentences2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); id. at 390 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a reque 2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); id. at 390 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a reque | 2 | 2 |
Factory Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of America v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2019Co. v. Singleton By & Through Singleton , 316 S.C. 5 , 12, 446 S.E.2d 417 , 421 (1994) ("Where the rights of innocent parties are jeopardized by a failure of the insured to comply with the notice requirements of an insurance policy, the insurer must show substantial prejudice to the insurer's **267 rights."); Factory Mutual , 256 S.C. at 381 , 182 S.E.2d at 729-30 ("[W]e think the sound rule to be that, in an action affecting the rights of innocent third parties under an automobile liability insurance policy, the noncompliance by the insured with policy provisions as to notice and forwarding s 2019Co. v. Singleton By & Through Singleton , 316 S.C. 5 , 12, 446 S.E.2d 417 , 421 (1994) ("Where the rights of innocent parties are jeopardized by a failure of the insured to comply with the notice requirements of an insurance policy, the insurer must show substantial prejudice to the insurer's **267 rights."); Factory Mutual , 256 S.C. at 381 , 182 S.E.2d at 729-30 ("[W]e think the sound rule to be that, in an action affecting the rights of innocent third parties under an automobile liability insurance policy, the noncompliance by the insured with policy provisions as to notice and forwarding s | 1 | 2 |
State v. Samsgreen2 sentences2026"In determining whether the evidence requires a charge on a lesser-included offense, the Supreme Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant." State v. Sams, 410 S.C. 303, 308 , 764 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2014). 2026"In determining whether the evidence requires a charge on a lesser-included offense, the Supreme Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant." State v. Sams, 410 S.C. 303, 308 , 764 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2023See Jordan, 435 S.C. at 505, 868 S.E.2d at 402 ("We cannot determine if the commission recognized it had the discretion . . . ."); Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (Id. 2018) (stating one of the "essential" considerations for reviewing a discretionary decision is "[w]hether the trial court . . . correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion"); Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354, 367 (D.C.1979) ("[R]eversal should follow if . . . the trial court did not recognize its capacity to exercise discretion . . . ."). 2 The exercise of discretion is then to follow a thought process t | 1 | 1 |
Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, Corp.green1 sentence2023See Jordan, 435 S.C. at 505, 868 S.E.2d at 402 ("We cannot determine if the commission recognized it had the discretion . . . ."); Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (Id. 2018) (stating one of the "essential" considerations for reviewing a discretionary decision is "[w]hether the trial court . . . correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion"); Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354, 367 (D.C.1979) ("[R]eversal should follow if . . . the trial court did not recognize its capacity to exercise discretion . . . ."). 2 The exercise of discretion is then to follow a thought process t | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2023No. 4 at 15) (finding the failure to provide any explanation for a decision is an abuse of discretion); id. at 14 ("The exercise of discretion is . . . to follow a thought process that begins with the trial court's clear understanding of the applicable law, continues with the court's sound analysis of the situation before it in light of the law, and ends with the trial court's ruling that follows the law and is supported by the facts and circumstances."); Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 303-04 , 372 S.E.2d 107, 115 (Ct. App. 1988) (finding the family court acted arbitrarily and abused its di 2023No. 4 at 15) (finding the failure to provide any explanation for a decision is an abuse of discretion); id. at 14 ("The exercise of discretion is . . . to follow a thought process that begins with the trial court's clear understanding of the applicable law, continues with the court's sound analysis of the situation before it in light of the law, and ends with the trial court's ruling that follows the law and is supported by the facts and circumstances."); Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 303-04 , 372 S.E.2d 107, 115 (Ct. App. 1988) (finding the family court acted arbitrarily and abused its di | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); id. at 390 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a reque 2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); id. at 390 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a reque | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fullergreen2 sentences2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); id. at 390 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a reque 2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); id. at 390 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a reque | 1 | 1 |
State v. Daygreen2 sentences2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); id. at 390 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a reque 2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); id. at 390 , 529 S.E.2d at 539 ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a reque | 1 | 1 |
Vermont Mutual Insurance v. Singleton Ex Rel. Singletongreen2 sentences2019Co. v. Singleton By & Through Singleton , 316 S.C. 5 , 12, 446 S.E.2d 417 , 421 (1994) ("Where the rights of innocent parties are jeopardized by a failure of the insured to comply with the notice requirements of an insurance policy, the insurer must show substantial prejudice to the insurer's **267 rights."); Factory Mutual , 256 S.C. at 381 , 182 S.E.2d at 729-30 ("[W]e think the sound rule to be that, in an action affecting the rights of innocent third parties under an automobile liability insurance policy, the noncompliance by the insured with policy provisions as to notice and forwarding s 2019Co. v. Singleton By & Through Singleton , 316 S.C. 5 , 12, 446 S.E.2d 417 , 421 (1994) ("Where the rights of innocent parties are jeopardized by a failure of the insured to comply with the notice requirements of an insurance policy, the insurer must show substantial prejudice to the insurer's **267 rights."); Factory Mutual , 256 S.C. at 381 , 182 S.E.2d at 729-30 ("[W]e think the sound rule to be that, in an action affecting the rights of innocent third parties under an automobile liability insurance policy, the noncompliance by the insured with policy provisions as to notice and forwarding s | 1 | 1 |
Keaton Ex Rel. Foster v. GREENVILLE HOSP.green2 sentences2019Sys., 334 S.C. 488, 495-96 , 514 S.E.2d 570, 574 (1999))); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 390 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a requested instruction which states a sound principle of law when that principle applies to the case at hand, and the principle is not otherwise included in the charge." (citing Sanders v. W. 2019Sys., 334 S.C. 488, 495-96 , 514 S.E.2d 570, 574 (1999))); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 390 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a requested instruction which states a sound principle of law when that principle applies to the case at hand, and the principle is not otherwise included in the charge." (citing Sanders v. W. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Scottgreen2 sentences2018See State v. Scott , 414 S.C. 482 , 486, 779 S.E.2d 529 , 531 (2015) ("The refusal to grant a requested jury charge that states a sound principle of law applicable to the case at hand is an error of law." (quoting State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527 , 570, 647 S.E.2d 144 , 167 (2007) ) ). 2018See State v. Scott , 414 S.C. 482 , 486, 779 S.E.2d 529 , 531 (2015) ("The refusal to grant a requested jury charge that states a sound principle of law applicable to the case at hand is an error of law." (quoting State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527 , 570, 647 S.E.2d 144 , 167 (2007) ) ). | 1 | 1 |
Ross v. Paddygreen2 sentences2010The court of appeals relied upon Black v. Hodge, 306 S.C. 196, 198 , 410 S.E.2d 595, 596 (Ct.App.1991) and Ross v. Paddy, 340 S.C. 428, 434 , 532 S.E.2d 612, 615 (Ct.App.2000). 2010The court of appeals relied upon Black v. Hodge, 306 S.C. 196, 198 , 410 S.E.2d 595, 596 (Ct.App.1991) and Ross v. Paddy, 340 S.C. 428, 434 , 532 S.E.2d 612, 615 (Ct.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Black v. Hodgegreen2 sentences2010The court of appeals relied upon Black v. Hodge, 306 S.C. 196, 198 , 410 S.E.2d 595, 596 (Ct.App.1991) and Ross v. Paddy, 340 S.C. 428, 434 , 532 S.E.2d 612, 615 (Ct.App.2000). 2010The court of appeals relied upon Black v. Hodge, 306 S.C. 196, 198 , 410 S.E.2d 595, 596 (Ct.App.1991) and Ross v. Paddy, 340 S.C. 428, 434 , 532 S.E.2d 612, 615 (Ct.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Shaw v. Colemangreen2 sentences2010Code Ann. § 15-43-10 (A) (2005) ("A person who erects, establishes, continues, maintains, uses, owns, occupies, leases, or releases any building or other place used for the purposes of . . . prostitution, repeated acts of unlawful possession or sale of controlled substances . . . in this State is guilty of a nuisance."); Shaw v. Coleman , 373 S.C. 485, 493 , 645 S.E.2d 252 , 256 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Where the terms of the statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning, without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operatio 2010Code Ann. § 15-43-10 (A) (2005) ("A person who erects, establishes, continues, maintains, uses, owns, occupies, leases, or releases any building or other place used for the purposes of . . . prostitution, repeated acts of unlawful possession or sale of controlled substances . . . in this State is guilty of a nuisance."); Shaw v. Coleman , 373 S.C. 485, 493 , 645 S.E.2d 252 , 256 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Where the terms of the statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning, without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operatio | 1 | 1 |
State v. Turnergreen2 sentences2010Code Ann. § 15-43-10 (A) (2005) ("A person who erects, establishes, continues, maintains, uses, owns, occupies, leases, or releases any building or other place used for the purposes of . . . prostitution, repeated acts of unlawful possession or sale of controlled substances . . . in this State is guilty of a nuisance."); Shaw v. Coleman , 373 S.C. 485, 493 , 645 S.E.2d 252 , 256 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Where the terms of the statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning, without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operatio 2010Code Ann. § 15-43-10 (A) (2005) ("A person who erects, establishes, continues, maintains, uses, owns, occupies, leases, or releases any building or other place used for the purposes of . . . prostitution, repeated acts of unlawful possession or sale of controlled substances . . . in this State is guilty of a nuisance."); Shaw v. Coleman , 373 S.C. 485, 493 , 645 S.E.2d 252 , 256 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Where the terms of the statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning, without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operatio | 1 | 1 |
| Burns v. South Carolina Commission for the Blindgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Price v. B. F. Shaw Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Gold v. Moragnegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Richardson v. Marshgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Belcher
green
2 sentences2018Thus, the dispositive question is whether the circuit court's error affected the results of the trial. **535 "Errors, including erroneous jury instructions, are subject to harmless error analysis." State v. Belcher , 385 S.C. 597 , 611, 685 S.E.2d 802 , 809 (2009). 2018Thus, the dispositive question is whether the circuit court's error affected the results of the trial. **535 "Errors, including erroneous jury instructions, are subject to harmless error analysis." State v. Belcher , 385 S.C. 597 , 611, 685 S.E.2d 802 , 809 (2009). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Weston
green
1 sentence2011“If there is any evidence to support a charge, the trial court should grant the request.” Williams, 367 S.C. at 195 , 624 S.E.2d at 445 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Austin
green
1 sentence2011“However, if the trial judge refuses to give a specific charge, there is no error if the charge actually given sufficiently covers the substance of the request.” Id. “ ‘It is error for the trial court to refuse to give a requested instruction which states a sound principle of law when that principle applies to the case at hand, and the principle is not otherwise included in the charge.’ ” State v. *550 Williams, 367 S.C. 192, 195, 624 S.E.2d 443, 445 (Ct.App.2005) (quoting Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 390 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Woodruff v. Tomlin
green
2 sentences2010In referring to the judgmental immunity rule as “a sound rule,” the Woodruff court observed that “[o]therwise every losing litigant would be able to sue his attorney if he could find another attorney who was willing to second guess the decisions of the first attorney with the advantage of hindsight.” Id. 2010In referring to the judgmental immunity rule as "a sound rule," the Woodruff court observed that "[o]therwise every losing litigant would be able to sue his attorney if he could find another attorney who was willing to second guess the decisions of the first attorney with the advantage of hindsight." Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Tindall
green
2 sentences2010The court of appeals cited to what, prior to today, was a sound rule"Under the `clear error' standard, an appellate court will not reverse a trial court's finding of fact simply because it would have decided the case differently." Tindall, 379 S.C. at 309 , 665 S.E.2d at 191 (citing Pichardo, 367 S.C. at 95-96 , 623 S.E.2d at 846 ). 2010The court of appeals cited to what, prior to today, was a sound rule"Under the `clear error' standard, an appellate court will not reverse a trial court's finding of fact simply because it would have decided the case differently." Tindall, 379 S.C. at 309 , 665 S.E.2d at 191 (citing Pichardo, 367 S.C. at 95-96 , 623 S.E.2d at 846 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Pichardo
green
2 sentences2010The court of appeals cited to what, prior to today, was a sound rule"Under the `clear error' standard, an appellate court will not reverse a trial court's finding of fact simply because it would have decided the case differently." Tindall, 379 S.C. at 309 , 665 S.E.2d at 191 (citing Pichardo, 367 S.C. at 95-96 , 623 S.E.2d at 846 ). 2010The court of appeals cited to what, prior to today, was a sound rule"Under the `clear error' standard, an appellate court will not reverse a trial court's finding of fact simply because it would have decided the case differently." Tindall, 379 S.C. at 309 , 665 S.E.2d at 191 (citing Pichardo, 367 S.C. at 95-96 , 623 S.E.2d at 846 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Willis v. Florida Power & Light Corp. neutral | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Ernal v. State Beverage Department green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Lee v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Roumillat v. Keller green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Etiwan Fertilizer Co. v. South Carolina Tax Commission green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| State v. Farnsworth green | 1 | 1955–1955 |
| Ayers v. Business Men's Ins. Co. neutral | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| Coleman v. Lurey green | 1 | 1950–1950 |
| House v. Wheelock neutral | 1 | 1948–1948 |
| State v. Robinson green | 1 | 1942–1942 |
| State v. Edwards green | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.