Greenville Legislative Delegation Transportation Commission v. Kissling

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedDecember 15, 2008
Docket2008-UP-697
StatusUnpublished

This text of Greenville Legislative Delegation Transportation Commission v. Kissling (Greenville Legislative Delegation Transportation Commission v. Kissling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Greenville Legislative Delegation Transportation Commission v. Kissling, (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals


Greenville Legislative Delegation Transportation Commission Appellant,

v.

Fredrick R. Kissling Respondent.


Appeal From Greenville County
Alison R. Lee, Circuit Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-697
Heard November 11, 2008 – Filed December 15, 2008   


AFFIRMED


Max T. Hyde, Jr., and Donald C. Coggins, Jr., both of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

H.W. Pat Paschal, Jr., of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Greenville Legislative Delegation Transportation Committee appeals from a jury award of $96,000 in this condemnation proceeding.   We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  I’On v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) (stating an appellate court may affirm for any reason appearing in the record, but may reverse only for a reason raised to and ruled upon by the trial court and argued on appeal); Burroughs & Chapin Co., v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 352 S.C. 535, 539, 574 S.E.2d 751, 753 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding the admission of evidence is a matter left to the discretion of the trial judge and, absent clear abuse, will not be disturbed on appeal); S.C. Dep’t of Transp. v. Richardson, 335 S.C. 278, 282, 516 S.E.2d 3, 5 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating a landowner is competent in condemnation proceedings to give opinion as to value of his or her land and damages); City of N. Charleston v. Claxton, 315 S.C. 56, 61, 431 S.E.2d 610, 613 (Ct. App. 1993) (finding a landowner may value property under its most advantageous or profitable use); Cantrell v. Carruth, 250 S.C 415, 421, 158 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1967) (holding testimony received without objection becomes competent and its sufficiency is for the jury); Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 85, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976) (holding a factual finding of a jury will not be disturbed unless a review of the record discloses no evidence which reasonably supports jury’s findings).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and PIEPER, J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

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

Related

Cantrell v. Carruth
158 S.E.2d 208 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1967)
I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant
526 S.E.2d 716 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville
221 S.E.2d 773 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1976)
South Carolina Department of Transportation v. Richardson
516 S.E.2d 3 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1999)
City of North Charleston v. Claxton
431 S.E.2d 610 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Greenville Legislative Delegation Transportation Commission v. Kissling, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenville-legislative-delegation-transportation-commission-v-kissling-scctapp-2008.