Peeler v. Town of Cowpens

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals David L. Peeler, Appellant, v. Town of Cowpens, Respondent. Appeal From Spartanburg County J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-334 Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed June 29, 2010 AFFIRMED William Jeffrey McGurk, of Spartanburg, for Appellant. Walter McElhaney White, of Spartanburg, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: David L. Peeler appeals the trial court's grant of a new trial pursuant to the thirteenth juror doctrine. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Folkens v. Hunt, 300 S.C. 251, 254-55, 387 S.E.2d 265, 267 (1990) ("A trial [court's] order granting or denying a new trial upon the facts will not be disturbed unless his decision is wholly unsupported by the evidence, or the conclusion reached was controlled by an error of law."); Watson v. Town of Pendleton, 294 S.C. 155, 157-58, 363 S.E.2d 234, 234-35 (Ct. App. 1987) (affirming the trial court's grant of a new trial pursuant to the thirteenth juror doctrine when the uncontested evidence at trial indicated the value of the condemned property was $37,350 and the jury returned a verdict of $0). AFFIRMED. FEW, C.J., THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.