Blue Ridge Electric v. Gresham

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

Blue Ridge Electric Cooperative, Inc., Appellant,

v.

Kathleen J. Gresham, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2009-141246

Appeal From Greenville County
R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-031
Submitted November 1, 2014 – Filed January 14, 2015

AFFIRMED

Larry C. Brandt, of Larry C. Brandt, PA, of Walhalla,
and Steven W. Hamm, of Richardson Plowden &
Robinson, PA, of Columbia, both for Appellant.

Kathleen J. Gresham, of Landrum, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. As to whether the record on appeal is adequate for meaningful appellate review:
Adams v. H.R. Allen, Inc., 397 S.C. 652, 656, 726 S.E.2d 9, 12 (Ct. App. 2012)
("[T]he reconstructed record must allow for meaningful appellate review."); State
v. Ladson, 373 S.C. 320, 324-25, 644 S.E.2d 271, 273 (Ct. App. 2007) (explaining
the inability to prepare a complete transcript, in and of itself, does not necessarily
present a ground for reversal); id. at 325, 644 S.E.2d at 273 ("Before a defendant
can establish that he is entitled to a new trial on the basis of an inadequate
reconstructed record, he must identify a specific appellate claim that this court
would be unable to review effectively using the reconstructed record." (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)); Sweat v. Crawford, 292 S.C. 324, 327, 356
S.E.2d 147, 149 (Ct. App. 1987) (finding omissions from the record did not
prejudice appellant because the evidence included in the record sufficiently
supported the findings of fact made by the referee).

2. As to whether the trial court erred by denying Appellant's new trial motion:
Brinkley v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 386 S.C. 182, 185, 687 S.E.2d 54, 56 (Ct. App.
2009) ("The grant or denial of new trial motions rests within the discretion of the
[trial] court . . . ."); Norton v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 350 S.C. 473, 478, 567 S.E.2d
851, 854 (2002) ("Upon review, a trial [court]'s order granting or denying a new
trial will be upheld unless the order is wholly unsupported by the evidence, or the
conclusion reached was controlled by an error of law." (internal quotation marks
omitted)); id. at 478-79, 567 S.E.2d at 854 ("This [c]ourt's review is limited to
consideration of whether evidence exists to support the trial court's order." (internal
quotation marks omitted)); Brinkley, 386 S.C. at 185-86, 687 S.E.2d at 56 ("In
deciding whether to assess error to a [trial] court's denial of a motion for a new
trial, [this court] must consider the testimony and reasonable inferences to be
drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.").

3. As to whether the trial court erred by denying Appellant's JNOV motion: RFT
Mgmt. Co. v. Tinsley & Adams L.L.P., 399 S.C. 322, 332, 732 S.E.2d 166, 171
(2012) ("An appellate court will reverse the trial court's ruling [on a JNOV motion]
only if no evidence supports the ruling below. In deciding such motions, neither
the trial court nor the appellate court has the authority to decide credibility issues
or to resolve conflicts in the testimony or the evidence." (citations omitted)); id. at
331-32, 732 S.E.2d at 171 (explaining when reviewing a trial court's ruling on a
JNOV motion, the appellate court "must apply the same standard as the trial court
by viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

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