Burke v. Anmed Health

40 Citing cases

  1. Stone v. McMaster

    No. 2021-UP-308 (S.C. Ct. App. Sep. 1, 2021)

    Although we acknowledge the jury's verdict of $100,000 is generous, this court does not sit to determine whether it agrees with the jury's verdict or to decide whether it agrees with the trial court's decision not to disturb the jury's verdict; rather, this court employs a highly deferential standard of review when examining the trial court's ruling on each of these grounds. See Burke v. AnMed Health, 393 S.C. 48, 57, 710 S.E.2d 84, 89 (Ct. App. 2011). Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to disturb the jury's verdict because the evidence in the record supported the verdict.

  2. Blackwell v. Herring

    Appellate Case No. 2017-000210 (S.C. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2019)

    In exercising this deference, we recognize the unique position of the trial judge to hear the evidence firsthand, evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, and assess the impact of the wrongful conduct on the plaintiff in terms of damages.Burke v. AnMed Health, 393 S.C. 48, 57, 710 S.E.2d 84, 89 (Ct. App. 2011). "A jury's determination of damages is entitled to 'substantial deference.'"

  3. Blackwell v. Herring

    No. 2019-UP-101 (S.C. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2019)

    In exercising this deference, we recognize the unique position of the trial judge to hear the evidence firsthand, evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, and assess the impact of the wrongful conduct on the plaintiff in terms of damages. Burke v. AnMed Health, 393 S.C. 48, 57, 710 S.E.2d 84, 89 (Ct. App. 2011). "A jury's determination of damages is entitled to 'substantial deference.'"

  4. Singleton v. City of Georgetown Building Official Stephen Stack

    2019-UP-050 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2019)

    The circuit court did not err in denying the City's motion for a new trial absolute. See Rule 59, SCRCP ("A new trial may be granted . . . in an action in which there has been a trial by jury, for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of the State."); Brinkley v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 386 S.C. 182, 185, 687 S.E.2d 54, 56 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The grant or denial of new trial motions rests within the discretion of the circuit court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless its findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are controlled by error of law."); Burke v. AnMed Health, 393 S.C. 48, 57, 710 S.E.2d 84, 89 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[A]s an appellate court, we sit neither to determine whether we agree with the verdict nor to decide whether we agree with the trial judge's decision not to disturb it. As described above, we employ a highly deferential standard of review when considering the trial judge's ruling on each of the grounds for a new trial.

  5. Singleton v. Stack

    Appellate Case No. 2016-000251 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2019)

    The circuit court did not err in denying the City's motion for a new trial absolute. See Rule 59, SCRCP ("A new trial may be granted . . . in an action in which there has been a trial by jury, for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of the State."); Brinkley v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 386 S.C. 182, 185, 687 S.E.2d 54, 56 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The grant or denial of new trial motions rests within the discretion of the circuit court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless its findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are controlled by error of law."); Burke v. AnMed Health, 393 S.C. 48, 57, 710 S.E.2d 84, 89 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[A]s an appellate court, we sit neither to determine whether we agree with the verdict nor to decide whether we agree with the trial judge's decision not to disturb it. As described above, we employ a highly deferential standard of review when considering the trial judge's ruling on each of the grounds for a new trial.

  6. Encore Tech. Grp. v. Keone Trask & Clear Touch Interactive, Inc.

    436 S.C. 289 (S.C. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    The circuit court may grant a new trial based on damages "only when the verdict ‘is shockingly disproportionate to the injuries suffered and thus indicates that passion, caprice, prejudice, or other considerations not reflected by the evidence affected the amount awarded.’ " Burke v. AnMed Health , 393 S.C. 48, 56, 710 S.E.2d 84, 88 (Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Becker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 339 S.C. 629, 635, 529 S.E.2d 758, 761 (2000) ). We defer to the jury's determination of damages, and we review the decision to grant or deny a new trial by asking whether the circuit court abused its discretion.

  7. Mills v. S.C. State Ports Auth.

    435 S.C. 213 (S.C. Ct. App. 2021)

    "If the trial court determines that the verdict is ‘merely excessive,’ the court has the power to reduce the verdict by granting a new trial nisi remittitur." Burke v. AnMed Health , 393 S.C. 48, 56, 710 S.E.2d 84, 88 (Ct. App. 2011). The trial court must provide "compelling reasons" to warrant invading the jury's province by granting a new trial nisi.

  8. Mills v. S. C. State Ports Auth.

    No. 5862 (S.C. Ct. App. Sep. 15, 2021)

    "If the trial court determines that the verdict is 'merely excessive,' the court has the power to reduce the verdict by granting a new trial nisi remittitur." Burke v. AnMed Health, 393 S.C. 48, 56, 710 S.E.2d 84, 88 (Ct. App. 2011). The trial court must provide "compelling reasons" to warrant invading the jury's province by granting a new trial nisi.

  9. Winthrop Univ. Trs. for S.C. v. Roofing

    418 S.C. 142 (S.C. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 3 times

    “A litigant's right to an impartial jury is a fundamental principle of our legal system.” Burke v. AnMed Health , 393 S.C. 48, 52, 710 S.E.2d 84, 86 (Ct. App. 2011). “[I]n all civil cases any party shall have the right to demand a panel of twenty competent and impartial jurors from which to strike a jury.”

  10. Green v. McGee

    441 S.C. 157 (S.C. Ct. App. 2023)

    The standard of review is highly deferential. SeeBurke v. AnMed Health , 393 S.C. 48, 56, 710 S.E.2d 84, 88 (Ct. App. 2011) ("A jury's determination of damages is entitled to ‘substantial deference.’ " (quoting Todd v. Joyner , 385 S.C. 509, 517, 685 S.E.2d 613, 618 (Ct. App. 2008), aff'd , 385 S.C. 421, 685 S.E.2d 595 (2009) )); i