State v. Carroll

How courts have described this case

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

• “Intent is seldom susceptible to proof by direct evidence and must ordinarily be proved by circumstantial evidence, that is, by facts and circumstances from which intent may be inferred.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• May v. Hopkinson
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1986-07-28· cited 30×
• State v. Salisbury
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-01-16· cited 24×
• State v. Salisbury
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1998-02-17· cited 17×
• State Ex Rel. Medlock v. Nest Egg Society Today, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1986-09-02· cited 11×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Tuckness
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1971-12-14· cited 45×
• Belcher v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1974-02-06· cited 10×
• State v. Simmons
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1977-12-08· cited 6×
• State v. Jenkins
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1978-03-14· cited 3×