State v. Burney

How courts have described this case

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

• State not required to reveal name of confidential informant unless an active participant in the criminal transaction
• disclosure required where informer introduced séller by different last name, and where police report written by testifying officer did not describe seller as having defendant’s moustache or missing teeth, and did not accurately describe defendant’s height
• declining to compel the identification of a “tipster.”
• declining to compel the identification of a \tipster.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Bultron
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1995-05-01· cited 40×
• State v. Gamble
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2013-08-28· cited 23×
• Brooks v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1990-09-06· cited 20×
• State v. Humphries
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2003-04-14· cited 8×
• State v. Humphries
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2001-08-06· cited 4×
• State v. Wright
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1996-06-17· cited 4×
• State v. Hayward
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1990-07-02· cited 1×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Sullivan
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1981-09-14· cited 101×
• State v. Stroman
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1984-05-21· cited 59×
• State v. Adams
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1987-01-19· cited 47×
• Ellis v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1976-08-09· cited 20×
• State v. Pressley
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1986-03-12· cited 15×
• State v. Viard
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1981-03-23· cited 9×
• State v. Blyther
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1985-10-22· cited 8×
• State v. Bernotas
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1981-09-29· cited 8×
• State v. Shupper
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1974-08-05· cited 8×