Legal Opinion

State v. Rothschild

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided August 26, 2002No. 25518PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Moore

Appellant was convicted of violating S.C.Code Ann. § 16-13-470(A)(4) (Supp.2001) which prohibits the possession of adulterants intended to defraud a urine drug screening test. We affirm.. FACTS

Appellant owns two stores in Richland County: Nicki’s Novelty Store and Michael’s Lingerie and Leather Shop. An ad for Nicki’s appeared in an issue of the Free Times Magazine which read: “Taking a drug test? Want to cleanse your system? We carry Readi-Clean, Carbo-Clean Plus, Quick Tabs, One Hour, Zydot, One Hour Klear, Body Flush.” On October 18, 1999, in response to the ad, undercover SLED agent…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human RelationsSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode IslandSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Curtis v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2001
  4. State v. BuckmonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2001
  5. State v. FergusonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1990

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. CherrySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2004
  2. State v. Al-AminCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2003
  3. State v. WildsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2003
  4. State v. ODEMSSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011
  5. State v. MooreCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API