O'Reilly v. Starnes

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

O'Reilly v. Starnes

DecidedJune 25, 2008

Docket2008-UP-318

StatusUnpublished

This text of O'Reilly v. Starnes (O'Reilly v. Starnes) 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

O'Reilly v. Starnes, (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

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

Bernie OReilly, Appellant,

v.

J.G. Starnes and Johnny Ray Starnes d/b/a Starnes Well Drilling, Respondents.

Appeal From Aiken County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-318
Submitted June 2, 2008 Filed June 25, 2008

AFFIRMED

A. Shane Massey, of Aiken, for Appellant.

Tom G. Woodruff, Jr., of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this action for breach of contract, Bernie OReilly appeals the trial courts order granting respondents motion for a new trial nisi remittitur.

We affirm[1] the order of the trial court pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Weaver v. Lentz, 348 S.C. 672, 682, 561 S.E.2d 360, 365 (Ct. App. 2002) (the trial court has wide discretionary power to reduce the amount of a verdict which it finds to be excessive); Chapman v. Upstate RV & Marine, 364 S.C. 82, 88-89, 610 S.E.2d 852, 856 (Ct. App. 2005) (the grant or denial of new trial motion rests within the discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless the findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are controlled by error of law); Proctor v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control, 368 S.C. 279, 320, 628 S.E.2d 496, 518 (Ct. App. 2006) (great deference is given to the trial judge who saw and heard the evidence and who, as a result, possessed a better-informed view of the damages than the reviewing court). While we may not have taken the same approach, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion because the nature and extent of the parties agreement was at issue during the trial.

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

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

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

Bernie OReilly, Appellant,

v.

J.G. Starnes and Johnny Ray Starnes d/b/a Starnes Well Drilling, Respondents.

Appeal From Aiken County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-318
Submitted June 2, 2008 Filed June 25, 2008

AFFIRMED

A. Shane Massey, of Aiken, for Appellant.

Tom G. Woodruff, Jr., of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this action for breach of contract, Bernie OReilly appeals the trial courts order granting respondents motion for a new trial nisi remittitur.

We affirm[1] the order of the trial court pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Weaver v. Lentz, 348 S.C. 672, 682, 561 S.E.2d 360, 365 (Ct. App. 2002) (the trial court has wide discretionary power to reduce the amount of a verdict which it finds to be excessive); Chapman v. Upstate RV & Marine, 364 S.C. 82, 88-89, 610 S.E.2d 852, 856 (Ct. App. 2005) (the grant or denial of new trial motion rests within the discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless the findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are controlled by error of law); Proctor v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control, 368 S.C. 279, 320, 628 S.E.2d 496, 518 (Ct. App. 2006) (great deference is given to the trial judge who saw and heard the evidence and who, as a result, possessed a better-informed view of the damages than the reviewing court). While we may not have taken the same approach, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion because the nature and extent of the parties agreement was at issue during the trial.

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

O'Reilly v. Starnes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oreilly-v-starnes-scctapp-2008.

Opinion

A. Shane Massey, of Aiken, for Appellant.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack