Supreme Court of South Carolina· 8/30/1993
Singleton v. State
Citations
- 437 S.E.2d 53
- 313 S.C. 75
- 1993 S.C. LEXIS 184
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that privacy right under South Carolina constitution would be violated by \forced medication solely to facilitate execution\
- holding that privacy right under South Carolina constitution would be violated by “forced medication solely to facilitate execution”
- holding that burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a prisoner has regained competency
- holding that burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a prisoner has regained competency
- holding that burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a prisoner has regained competency
- holding forced medication solely to facilitate execution would violate state constitutional right of privacy
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Toal, Harwell, Chandler, Finney, Littlejohn
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
34 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Fearance v. ScottFifth Circuit· 1995-06-19· cited 129×
- State v. ForresterSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-02-12· cited 111×
- Commonwealth v. SamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2008-07-22· cited 95×
- Van Tran v. StateTennessee Supreme Court· 1999-11-23· cited 76×
- Percy Levar Walton v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of CorrectionsFourth Circuit· 2006-03-09· cited 65×
- Franklin v. MaynardSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2003-11-03· cited 35×
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2016-05-18· cited 24×
- State v. PassaroSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2002-07-29· cited 19×
- Quincy Allen v. Michael StephanFourth Circuit· 2022-07-26· cited 18×
- Hughes v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2006-02-13· cited 17×
- Council v. CatoeSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2004-06-01· cited 14×
- Marcum v. BowdenSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2007-02-05· cited 14×
- State v. TorrenceSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1994-11-03· cited 12×
- Council v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2008-12-29· cited 11×
- Provenzano v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 2000-05-25· cited 10×
- Reed v. OzmintSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2007-06-18· cited 8×
- Sims v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1993-12-06· cited 7×
- State v. McAteerSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2000-05-30· cited 7×
- State v. MottsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2011-03-21· cited 7×
- State v. FinkleaSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2010-07-26· cited 6×
Cites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court· 1979-04-30· cited 3,004×
- Vitek v. JonesSupreme Court· 1980-03-25· cited 1,747×
- Ford v. WainwrightSupreme Court· 1986-06-26· cited 1,525×
- Washington v. HarperSupreme Court· 1990-04-16· cited 1,489×
- Riggins v. NevadaSupreme Court· 1992-05-18· cited 734×
- Solesbee v. BalkcomSupreme Court· 1950-03-27· cited 155×
- State v. PerrySupreme Court of Louisiana· 1992-11-09· cited 72×
- State v. HarrisWashington Supreme Court· 1990-03-29· cited 49×
- State v. MiddletonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1988-02-22· cited 41×
- Martin v. DuggerS.D. Florida· 1988-06-01· cited 32×
- People v. GearyIllinois Supreme Court· 1921-06-22· cited 32×
- State v. SingletonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1985-01-31· cited 30×
- In re SmithNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1918-12-04· cited 30×
- State v. CarsonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1980-02-19· cited 14×
- Tyson v. McKellarSupreme Court· 1987-05-18· cited 12×
- Young v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1968-01-09· cited 2×
- Gilstrap v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1969-05-28· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.