Peeler v. Town of Cowpens

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Peeler v. Town of Cowpens

DecidedJune 29, 2010

Docket2010-UP-334

StatusUnpublished

This text of Peeler v. Town of Cowpens (Peeler v. Town of Cowpens) 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

Peeler v. Town of Cowpens, (S.C. Ct. App. 2010).

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 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Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-334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.

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 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Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-334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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Peeler v. Town of Cowpens, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peeler-v-town-of-cowpens-scctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack