Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2/17/1998
State v. Salisbury
Citations
- 498 S.E.2d 655
- 330 S.C. 250
- 1998 S.C. App. LEXIS 19
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding any alleged error in sentencing is not jurisdictional; therefore, a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve the issue for appellate review
- ruling the conflict in testimony regarding the administration of the breathalyzer test went to the weight of the evidence as opposed to its admissibility
- holding the denial of a motion to suppress evidence based on a Rule 5 violation is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion
- \[A]ny alleged error in sentencing . . . requires a contemporaneous objection to preserve the issue for appellate review.\
- \[A]ny alleged error in sentencing . . . requires a contemporaneous objection to preserve the issue for appellate review.\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Connor, Anderson, Huff
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. MillerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2007-10-19· cited 59×
- State v. JohnstonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1999-01-04· cited 58×
- State v. SantiagoCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2006-06-19· cited 49×
- State v. SalisburySupreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-01-16· cited 24×
- State v. KingCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2005-11-21· cited 18×
- State v. DialCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2013-07-10· cited 16×
- State v. LandonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2006-08-21· cited 15×
- State v. HookCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2001-12-17· cited 5×
- Anderson v. StateCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2024-02-21
Cites
51 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1966-06-13· cited 58,288×
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court· 1968-06-10· cited 37,942×
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1967-03-27· cited 23,069×
- United States v. AgursSupreme Court· 1976-06-24· cited 6,537×
- Jackson v. DennoSupreme Court· 1964-06-22· cited 6,121×
- Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court· 1984-07-02· cited 4,856×
- Colorado v. ConnellySupreme Court· 1986-12-10· cited 4,016×
- Holland v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1955-01-31· cited 3,238×
- Stansbury v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1994-04-26· cited 2,603×
- Lego v. TwomeySupreme Court· 1972-01-12· cited 1,930×
- State v. TorrenceSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-05-20· cited 352×
- Pennsylvania v. BruderSupreme Court· 1988-10-31· cited 190×
- State v. AlexanderSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-02-04· cited 119×
- Carter v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1998-01-19· cited 78×
- State v. SullivanSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1993-01-11· cited 67×
- State v. KelleySupreme Court of South Carolina· 1995-07-24· cited 60×
- State v. GripponSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1997-07-21· cited 45×
- State v. TucknessSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1971-12-14· cited 45×
- State v. DobySupreme Court of South Carolina· 1979-10-03· cited 41×
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.