Thomas v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the “legislature could not have intended second or subsequent offenses under [statute] to include only the offense of marijuana trafficking when there is a specific statute which defines second or subsequent offenses as any drug offense”
• holding the “legislature could not have intended second or subsequent offenses under [statute] to include only the offense of marijuana trafficking when there is a specific statute which defines second or subsequent offenses as any drug offense”
• stating an indictment is adequate if the offense is stated with sufficient certainty and particularity to enable the court to know what judgment to pronounce and the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Stephen v. Avins Construction Co.
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1996-10-07· cited 81×
• State v. Dupree
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2003-06-30· cited 37×
• State v. Laib
  North Dakota Supreme Court· 2002-06-04· cited 33×
• Thomas v. Davis
  Fourth Circuit· 1999-09-28· cited 27×
• Patterson v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2004-05-24· cited 8×
• Eide v. Eide
  North Dakota Supreme Court· 2002-06-04

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Browning Ex Rel. Estate of Browning v. Hartvigsen
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1992-01-27· cited 63×
• In the Interest of Lamont G.
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-05-13· cited 7×
• Rainey v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1992-01-27· cited 6×