Rrr, Inc. v. Toggas

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Rrr, Inc. v. Toggas

674 S.E.2d 170, 381 S.C. 490, 2009 S.C. LEXIS 45

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 9, 2009

Docket26612

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 674 S.E.2d 170 (Rrr, Inc. v. Toggas) 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

Rrr, Inc. v. Toggas, 674 S.E.2d 170, 381 S.C. 490, 2009 S.C. LEXIS 45 (S.C. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision in RRR, Inc. v. Toggas, 378 S.C. 174, 662 S.E.2d 438 (Ct.App.2008). We grant the petition as to the question of whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding *491 the award of punitive damages, dispense with further briefing, and affirm. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied as to petitioners’ remaining questions.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge’s award of punitive damages after a consideration of the factors listed in Gamble v. Stevenson, 305 S.C. 104, 406 S.E.2d 350 (1991), holding there was no error of law amounting to an abuse of the trial judge’s discretion.

The Court of Appeals erred by not considering the guideposts discussed in BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996). However, after conducting a de novo review and canvassing the facts, we conclude the punitive damages award was reasonable pursuant to Gore. See also Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346, 127 S.Ct. 1057, 166 L.Ed.2d 940 (2007); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003) (mandating appellate courts conduct a de novo review of the trial judge’s application of the Gore guideposts). We therefore affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the punitive damages award.

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., WALLER, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur. PLEICONES, J., not participating.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision in RRR, Inc. v. Toggas, 378 S.C. 174, 662 S.E.2d 438 (Ct.App.2008). We grant the petition as to the question of whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding *491 the award of punitive damages, dispense with further briefing, and affirm. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied as to petitioners’ remaining questions.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge’s award of punitive damages after a consideration of the factors listed in Gamble v. Stevenson, 305 S.C. 104, 406 S.E.2d 350 (1991), holding there was no error of law amounting to an abuse of the trial judge’s discretion.

The Court of Appeals erred by not considering the guideposts discussed in BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996). However, after conducting a de novo review and canvassing the facts, we conclude the punitive damages award was reasonable pursuant to Gore. See also Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346, 127 S.Ct. 1057, 166 L.Ed.2d 940 (2007); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003) (mandating appellate courts conduct a de novo review of the trial judge’s application of the Gore guideposts). We therefore affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the punitive damages award.

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., WALLER, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur. PLEICONES, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

674 S.E.2d 170, 381 S.C. 490, 2009 S.C. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rrr-inc-v-toggas-sc-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack