Peeler v. Town of Cowpens

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Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-334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.