There are so many areas of South Carolina law that could
use precedential analysis by our appellate courts that the act of depublishing opinions is almost perverse.
Not exact matches
Commercial publishers also
use legal staff to screen decisions and make judgment calls on what decisions should be considered material of
precedential value, and therefore be included in their databases.
There's a broader issue, which is of interest to anyone
using caselaw databases for statistical / quantified analysis (as opposed to
precedential value).
The court had consistently reached this result in unpublished opinions, and it
used Goode to memorialize the rule in a
precedential opinion.