Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 7/17/1995

State v. Mueller

Citations

460 S.E.2d 409
319 S.C. 266
1995 S.C. App. LEXIS 105

How courts have described this case

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

holding that pretrial motions are generally not final orders because \the evidence developed during trial may warrant a change in the ruling\
holding that pretrial motions are generally not final orders because \the evidence developed during trial may warrant a change in the ruling\
holding that pretrial motions are generally not final orders because \the evidence developed during trial may warrant a change in the ruling\
holding that defendant could bring out conviction on direct examination and then challenge validity of ruling on appeal; under South Carolina law, however, defendant need not renew earlier objection to admission of testimony to preserve issue for appeal
holding that defendant could bring out conviction on direct examination and then challenge validity of ruling on appeal; under South Carolina law, however, defendant need not renew earlier objection to admission of testimony to preserve issue for appeal
holding that, “if a party has obtained a final ruling on the admissibility of impeachment evidence, that party does not lose his right to challenge on appeal the admissibility of the evidence by eliciting the evidence during direct examination”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Howell, Goolsby, Hearn

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.