Supreme Court of South Carolina· 11/14/1979
State v. Roper
Citations
- 260 S.E.2d 705
- 274 S.C. 14
- 1979 S.C. LEXIS 489
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reviewing court cannot consider error in exclusion of testimony unless the record shows what the rejected testimony would be
- collecting state statutes and judicial 15 decisions that have departed from the common law definition of 16 robbery
- finding probable cause existed to stop an automobile matching a witness’s description of two black males driving a late model, green Thunderbird with a red and white license tag bearing the letters “MVB” or “MVF”
- finding probable cause existed to stop an automobile matching a witness's description of two black males driving a late model, green Thunderbird with a red and white license tag bearing the letters \MVB\ or \MVF\
- no abuse of discretion to accept guilty verdict where juror eventually unequivocally assented to guilty verdict
- a reviewing court may not consider error alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the rejected testimony would have been
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Rhodes, Lewis, Littlejohn, Ness, Gregory
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. LeeIdaho Court of Appeals· 1998-04-03· cited 94×
- State v. SchmidtSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1986-03-31· cited 50×
- State v. SantiagoCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2006-06-19· cited 49×
- Diehl v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1982-10-13· cited 49×
- State v. KimbrellSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1987-11-23· cited 42×
- Smith v. HaynsworthSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1996-07-01· cited 42×
- Gathers v. Harris Teeter Supermarket, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1984-06-11· cited 32×
- Jamison v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2007-03-19· cited 27×
- State v. SingletonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1995-08-07· cited 19×
- State v. KingCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2005-11-21· cited 18×
- State v. AndersonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-05-20· cited 18×
- State v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1996-07-09· cited 17×
- City of Columbia v. ErvinSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1998-05-11· cited 16×
- South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles v. McCarsonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2011-01-24· cited 11×
- State v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1992-01-13· cited 10×
- State v. GallowayCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1991-07-22· cited 9×
- State v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1993-03-01· cited 8×
- Carson v. South Carolina Department of Natural ResourcesSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2002-05-20· cited 8×
- Langley v. GrahamCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1996-06-10· cited 8×
- Lapp v. South Carolina Department of Motor VehiclesCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2010-03-31· cited 8×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Draper v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1959-01-26· cited 3,191×
- Michigan v. DeFillippoSupreme Court· 1979-06-25· cited 1,685×
- Elliott v. Black River Electric CooperativeSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1958-07-11· cited 48×
- State v. GilbertSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1979-10-02· cited 43×
- State v. SwillingSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1967-06-08· cited 35×
- State v. PetersSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1978-10-19· cited 27×
- State v. CoxSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1972-03-07· cited 9×
- State v. GallowaySupreme Court of South Carolina· 1975-02-12· 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.