MITIOGLO v. VOYLES, 2014-UP-311. (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Number: inscco20140806518
Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2014
Summary: 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), SCARC. PER CURIAM. Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Duncan v. Hampton Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 335 S.C. 535 , 547, 517 S.E.2d 449 , 455 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The trial court must grant a new trial absolute if the verdict is so grossly excessive that it shocks the conscience of the court and clearly indicates the
Summary: 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), SCARC. PER CURIAM. Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Duncan v. Hampton Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 335 S.C. 535 , 547, 517 S.E.2d 449 , 455 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The trial court must grant a new trial absolute if the verdict is so grossly excessive that it shocks the conscience of the court and clearly indicates the ..
More
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), SCARC.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Duncan v. Hampton Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 335 S.C. 535, 547, 517 S.E.2d 449, 455 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The trial court must grant a new trial absolute if the verdict is so grossly excessive that it shocks the conscience of the court and clearly indicates the amount of the verdict was the result of caprice, passion, prejudice, partiality, corruption, or other improper motive. Alternatively, the trial court may grant a new trial absolute when, sitting as the thirteenth juror, it concludes the jury's verdict is not supported by the evidence. However, [t]he jury's determination of damages is entitled to substantial deference. On appeal, the appellate court reviews a denial of a new trial motion for an abuse of discretion. The appellate court will not reverse the trial court's decision unless it is controlled by an error of law or is not supported by the evidence." (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.1
HUFF, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
FootNotes
1. We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Source: Leagle
