 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Ex parte Bland, Opinion No. 26547,
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, September 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding that respondents' possession of a policy manual did not violate a protective order, breach a settlement agreement, and did not warrant the grant of any relief. Use of continued possession of manual as leverage in discovery in another case indicated willful intent to violate agreement and order.
|
|||||
| Scott v. State, Memorandum Opinion No. 2008-MO-039,
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, September 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Martucci, Opinion No. 4438,
COURT OF APPEALS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, September 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for homicide by child abuse, S.C. Code Ann. ¿ 16-3-85, was upheld because autopsy photos corroborated doctor's testimony of injuries and were relevant and probative under S.C. R. Evid. 401 and 402; photos proved abuse, cause of death, and extreme indifference to life. Prior abuse evidence was admissible to prove intent.
|
|||||
| State v. Whitner, Opinion No. 4436,
COURT OF APPEALS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, September 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of defendant's statement of address did not affect substantial rights under S.C. R. Evid. 103(a); statement was cumulative of that made on booking and bond forms, and officer testified that a witness told him that defendant lived at the address. Limited cross examination not affecting trial's outcome was not reversible error.
|
|||||
| Youmans v. S.C. DOT, Opinion No. 4437,
COURT OF APPEALS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, September 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: New trial granted pursuant to thirteenth juror doctrine was reversed because conclusion that no evidence supported jury's finding that decedent was not negligent was contrary to the record. One-hour jury deliberation period alone was not a basis for invoking the thirteenth juror doctrine; there was no showing that evidence did not support verdict.
|
|||||
| Bickerstaff v. Prevost, Opinion No. 4439,
COURT OF APPEALS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, September 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the parties' contract was for a definite amount, the measure of recovery was fixed by conditions existing at the time the claim arose; therefore, the trial court properly determined that the contractor was entitled to interest on the amount of damages awarded by the jury in the amount of one percent per day pursuant to the contract.
|
|||||
| In re Koulpasis, Opinion No. 26548,
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, September 29, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney failed to keep clients informed of their cases and her status with the South Carolina Bar, pursuant to S.C. App. Ct. R. 413:21, 7(b), the attorney was suspended for two years for violating S.C. App. Ct. R. 407:1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(a)(2), (b)(1), (c), (d), 3.2, 8.4(a), (d), (e), S.C. App. Ct. R. 413:7(a)(1), (4), (5).
|
|||||
| In re Glover, [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, October 1, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Gaines, Opinion No. 26549,
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, October 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prior online chats with Pennsylvania minor before effective date of S.C. Code Ann. ¿ 16-15-342 were properly admitted in trial for criminal solicitation of South Carolina minor because chats were at all times illegal under 18 Pa. C.S. ¿ 6318 and relevant under S.C. R. Crim. P. 404(b) and defendant was not indicted for chats with Pennsylvania minor.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
