Greenville Legislative Delegation Transportation Commission v. Kissling
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
Greenville Legislative Delegation Transportation Commission Appellant,
Fredrick R. Kissling Respondent.
Appeal From Greenville County
Alison R. Lee, Circuit Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-697
Heard November 11, 2008 Filed December 15, 2008
Max T. Hyde, Jr., and Donald C. Coggins, Jr., both of Spartanburg, for Appellant.
H.W. Pat Paschal, Jr., of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Greenville Legislative Delegation Transportation Committee appeals from a jury award of $96,000 in this condemnation proceeding. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: I'On v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) (stating an appellate court may affirm for any reason appearing in the record, but may reverse only for a reason raised to and ruled upon by the trial court and argued on appeal); Burroughs & Chapin Co., v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 352 S.C. 535, 539, 574 S.E.2d 751, 753 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding the admission of evidence is a matter left to the discretion of the trial judge and, absent clear abuse, will not be disturbed on appeal); S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. Richardson, 335 S.C. 278, 282, 516 S.E.2d 3, 5 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating a landowner is competent in condemnation proceedings to give opinion as to value of his or her land and damages); City of N. Charleston v. Claxton, 315 S.C. 56, 61, 431 S.E.2d 610, 613 (Ct. App. 1993) (finding a landowner may value property under its most advantageous or profitable use); Cantrell v. Carruth, 250 S.C 415, 421, 158 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1967) (holding testimony received without objection becomes competent and its sufficiency is for the jury); Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 85, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976) (holding a factual finding of a jury will not be disturbed unless a review of the record discloses no evidence which reasonably supports jury's findings).
HEARN, C.J., and PIEPER, J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.