Dent v. Redd Ex Rel. Estate of Cochran

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Dent v. Redd Ex Rel. Estate of Cochran

243 S.E.2d 460, 270 S.C. 585, 1978 S.C. LEXIS 435

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 20, 1978

Docket20670

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 243 S.E.2d 460 (Dent v. Redd Ex Rel. Estate of Cochran) 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

Dent v. Redd Ex Rel. Estate of Cochran, 243 S.E.2d 460, 270 S.C. 585, 1978 S.C. LEXIS 435 (S.C. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Gregory, Justice:

This wrongful death action was brought by respondent Thelma P. Redd as Administratrix of the estate of Pearl P. Cochran. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellant Rubin Dent. This appeal is from the order of the lower court granting respondent’s motion for a new trial upon the ground the verdict was contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. We affirm.

It is settled that the trial judge has the authority and the responsibility to grant a new trial when, in his judgment, the verdict of the jury is contrary to the fair preponderance of the evidence. This Court will not disturb the trial judge’s decision to grant a new trial upon the facts unless his finding is wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusion reached was controlled by error of law. South Carolina State Highway Department v. Clarkson, 267 S. C. 121, 226 S. E. (2d) 696 (1976); South Carolina State Highway Department v. Terrain, Inc., 267 S. C. 186, 227 S. E. (2d) 184 (1976); Adams v. Duffie, 244 S. C. 365, 137 S. E. (2d) 276 (1964); Mack v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 243 S. C. 376, 133 S. E. (2d) 833 (1963).

The record in this case demonstrates that the testimony and evidence are in conflict on the issues of fact. Since the trial judge’s finding has support in the evidence, ’ there was no abuse of discretion or error of law committed in granting a new trial. Clarkson, supra.

Appeal dismissed.

Lewis, C. J., and Littlejohn, Ness and Rhodes, JJ., concur.

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

Gregory, Justice:

This wrongful death action was brought by respondent Thelma P. Redd as Administratrix of the estate of Pearl P. Cochran. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellant Rubin Dent. This appeal is from the order of the lower court granting respondent’s motion for a new trial upon the ground the verdict was contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. We affirm.

It is settled that the trial judge has the authority and the responsibility to grant a new trial when, in his judgment, the verdict of the jury is contrary to the fair preponderance of the evidence. This Court will not disturb the trial judge’s decision to grant a new trial upon the facts unless his finding is wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusion reached was controlled by error of law. South Carolina State Highway Department v. Clarkson, 267 S. C. 121, 226 S. E. (2d) 696 (1976); South Carolina State Highway Department v. Terrain, Inc., 267 S. C. 186, 227 S. E. (2d) 184 (1976); Adams v. Duffie, 244 S. C. 365, 137 S. E. (2d) 276 (1964); Mack v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 243 S. C. 376, 133 S. E. (2d) 833 (1963).

The record in this case demonstrates that the testimony and evidence are in conflict on the issues of fact. Since the trial judge’s finding has support in the evidence, ’ there was no abuse of discretion or error of law committed in granting a new trial. Clarkson, supra.

Appeal dismissed.

Lewis, C. J., and Littlejohn, Ness and Rhodes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 S.E.2d 460, 270 S.C. 585, 1978 S.C. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dent-v-redd-ex-rel-estate-of-cochran-sc-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack