Foster v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding there is no state constitutional right to hybrid representation in postconviction proceedings
• if a party is represented by counsel, the trial court is not required to accept any document a litigant wishes to file
• no right to hybrid representation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Stuckey
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1998-11-05· cited 15×
• Miller v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2010-07-08· cited 8×
• Jones v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2002-01-10· cited 6×
• State v. Devore
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2016-03-23· cited 6×
• Whelchel v. Bazzle
  D. South Carolina· 2006-12-18· cited 4×
• Dennison v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2006-12-06· cited 4×
• State v. Cabrera-Pena
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2002-05-20· cited 3×
• City of Columbia v. Assa'ad-Faltas
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2017-06-21· cited 3×
• State v. Roberts
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2005-06-03· cited 1×
• John Lee Hrbek v. State of Iowa
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 2021-04-16
• Koon v. Clare
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2000-01-19

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Anders v. California
  Supreme Court· 1967-05-08· cited 87,848×
• Johnson v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1988-01-25· cited 80×
• State v. Sanders
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1977-08-10· cited 7×