Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-318 - O’Reilly v. Starnes

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

Bernie O’Reilly, Appellant,

v.

J.G. Starnes and Johnny Ray Starnes d/b/a Starnes Well Drilling, Respondents.


Appeal From Aiken County
 Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-318
Submitted June 2, 2008 – Filed June 25, 2008


AFFIRMED


A. Shane Massey, of Aiken, for Appellant.

Tom G. Woodruff, Jr., of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this action for breach of contract, Bernie O’Reilly appeals the trial court’s order granting respondent’s motion for a new trial nisi remittitur. 

We affirm[1] the order of the trial court pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Weaver v. Lentz, 348 S.C. 672, 682, 561 S.E.2d 360, 365 (Ct. App. 2002) (the trial court has wide discretionary power to reduce the amount of a verdict which it finds to be excessive);  Chapman v. Upstate RV & Marine, 364 S.C. 82, 88-89, 610 S.E.2d 852, 856 (Ct. App. 2005) (the grant or denial of new trial motion rests within the discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless the findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are controlled by error of law); Proctor v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control, 368 S.C. 279, 320, 628 S.E.2d 496, 518 (Ct. App. 2006) (great deference is given to the trial judge who saw and heard the evidence and who, as a result, possessed a better-informed view of the damages than the reviewing court).  While we may not have taken the same approach, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion because the nature and extent of the parties’ agreement was at issue during the trial.

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.


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