State v. Green

How courts have described this case

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

• “A motion for directed verdict, therefore, contests the sufficiency of the State’s properly admitted evidence. On the other hand, the appropriate vehicle for challenging the admissibility of evidence based on an alleged search and seizure violation is a motion to suppress.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Burton
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2003-11-03· cited 58×
• State of Iowa v. James L. Mathias
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 2019-12-06

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Mapp v. Ohio
  Supreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 9,088×
• State v. Kelsey
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1998-06-08· cited 143×
• State v. McHoney
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-03-19· cited 100×
• State v. Blackmon
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-04-22· cited 78×
• State v. Ivory
  Supreme Court of New Jersey· 1991-07-11· cited 55×
• Brown v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-01-08· cited 44×
• State v. Huggins
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1997-01-20· cited 38×
• State v. Hammond
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1978-03-13· cited 32×
• State v. Miller
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1985-11-10· cited 28×
• State v. Blassingame
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1978-05-22· cited 20×
• State v. Green
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1997-07-21· cited 18×
• State v. Harrison
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1960-04-06· cited 18×
• State v. Brannon
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2001-09-10· cited 16×
• State v. Humphery
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1981-02-05· cited 15×
• State v. Johnson
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2001-08-06· cited 12×
• State v. Patton
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1996-06-10· cited 11×
• State v. Primus
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2000-07-10· cited 10×