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 239(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. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-121

Submitted February 1, 2006 – Filed February 24, 2006

AFFIRMED

David L. Peeler, of Gaffney, pro se.

Walter M. White, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:   David L. Peeler appeals an order of the trial court dismissing Peeler’s challenge to the Town of Cowpens’ right to condemn his property.  On appeal, Peeler states his “arguments are the same as the grounds stated in [his] motion for a new trial,” in which Peeler essentially argued lack of just compensation and lack of evidence of contamination and hazardous conditions on the subject property.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and Timmons v. South Carolina Tricent. Comm’n, 254 S.C. 378, 175 S.E.2d 805 (1970) (holding taking of private property for use as a park, for recreational purposes, or for public health is a valid public use).  Therefore, the decision of the circuit court is

AFFIRMED.[1]

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and STILWELL, JJ., concur. 

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