O'Neal v. Mullins

Supreme Court of South Carolina

O'Neal v. Mullins

484 S.E.2d 874, 326 S.C. 137, 1997 S.C. LEXIS 87

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 28, 1997

DocketNo. 24611

StatusPublished

This text of 484 S.E.2d 874 (O'Neal v. Mullins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Neal v. Mullins, 484 S.E.2d 874, 326 S.C. 137, 1997 S.C. LEXIS 87 (S.C. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C.Code Ann. § 14-7-1030 (Supp.1996) (“All objections to jurors called to try prosecutions, actions, issues, or questions arising out of actions or special proceedings in the various courts of this State, if not made before the juror is impaneled for or charged with the trial of the prosecution, action, issue, or question arising out of an action or special proceeding, is waived, and if made thereafter is of no effect.”); Stelter v. Keenan, 287 S.C. 389, 339 S.E.2d 116 (1986) (If objection is made after jury is impaneled, objecting party must show he could not, in the exercise of due diligence, have discovered grounds for objection before jury was impaneled.); McCourt v. Abernathy, 318 S.C. 301, 457 S.E.2d 603 (1995) (In order to recover punitive damages, there must be evidence defendant’s conduct was wilful; wanton, or in reckless disregard of plaintiffs rights.).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C.Code Ann. § 14-7-1030 (Supp.1996) (“All objections to jurors called to try prosecutions, actions, issues, or questions arising out of actions or special proceedings in the various courts of this State, if not made before the juror is impaneled for or charged with the trial of the prosecution, action, issue, or question arising out of an action or special proceeding, is waived, and if made thereafter is of no effect.”); Stelter v. Keenan, 287 S.C. 389, 339 S.E.2d 116 (1986) (If objection is made after jury is impaneled, objecting party must show he could not, in the exercise of due diligence, have discovered grounds for objection before jury was impaneled.); McCourt v. Abernathy, 318 S.C. 301, 457 S.E.2d 603 (1995) (In order to recover punitive damages, there must be evidence defendant’s conduct was wilful; wanton, or in reckless disregard of plaintiffs rights.).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 S.E.2d 874, 326 S.C. 137, 1997 S.C. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-v-mullins-sc-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack