Madison County Bank v. Graham

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there was good cause for a continuance under the IAD based in part on the complexity and magnitude of the case, which involved a double murder and a first degree burglary
• holding admission of a letter into evidence did not amount to reversible error, as the evidence contained in the letter was merely cumulative to other evidence
• “[W]e will reverse a circuit court’s decision to grant a continuance under the IAD only when it amounts to an abuse of discretion.”
• \The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a prejudicial abuse of discretion.\
• \In South Carolina '[t]he grant or denial of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial [court] and is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the record.'\ (quoting Plyler v. Burns, 373 S.C. 637, 650, 647 S.E.2d 188, 195 (2007))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).