Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1/24/1994
State v. Hoffman
Citations
- 440 S.E.2d 869
- 312 S.C. 386
- 1994 S.C. LEXIS 29
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review
- holding that a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review
- holding a broad and non-contemporaneous objection is not enough to properly preserve an error for appellate review
- holding “[a] contemporaneous objection is required to properly preserve an error for appel late review” and an “issue which is not properly preserved cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”
- holding a contemporaneous objection is required to properly preserve an error for appellate review and an issue which is not properly preserved cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
- holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Toal, Chandler, Finney, Moore
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
53 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. AdkinsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2003-01-06· cited 88×
- State v. NeedsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1998-11-23· cited 76×
- Keaton Ex Rel. Foster v. GREENVILLE HOSP.Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1999-03-01· cited 75×
- State v. FranklinSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1995-03-13· cited 67×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1996-04-08· cited 65×
- State v. FoustSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1996-12-02· cited 63×
- State v. ZeiglerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2005-03-21· cited 60×
- State v. CurtisSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2004-01-05· cited 54×
- State v. PattersonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2006-01-09· cited 51×
- State v. WhippleSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1996-07-01· cited 50×
- State v. AldretSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1999-01-04· cited 49×
- State v. CarlsonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2005-02-22· cited 49×
- State v. 192 Coin-Operated Video Game MacHinesSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2000-02-07· cited 46×
- State v. BlackCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1995-08-07· cited 35×
- State v. WattsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1996-02-05· cited 34×
- State v. BurtonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1997-06-02· cited 34×
- State v. LindseyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2011-08-10· cited 29×
- State v. CarterSupreme Court of Rhode Island· 2000-01-28· cited 24×
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1994-10-03· cited 23×
- State v. BeekmanCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2013-06-26· cited 22×
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Cage v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 1990-11-13· cited 1,172×
- State v. TorrenceSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-05-20· cited 352×
- State v. SimsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-09-24· cited 97×
- State v. ManningSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-09-09· cited 50×
- State v. PierceSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1986-07-21· cited 36×
- State v. RabonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1980-12-01· cited 33×
- Gallman v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1992-02-24· cited 28×
- State v. VanderbiltSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1986-02-21· cited 22×
- State v. SosebeeSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1985-02-14· cited 13×
- State v. ParkerSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1971-02-02· cited 6×
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.