Elam v. South Carolina Department of Transportation
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1DissentJustice Waller
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, SCDOT’s Rule 59(e) motion, raising the same issues orally raised to and ruled upon in its motions for directed verdict, JNOV, and a new trial, did not stay the time for filing a notice of appeal. I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding that SCDOT’s appeal was untimely.
Post-trial motions are required in two primary circumstances: to preserve issues that have been raised to the trial court but not yet ruled upon or when the trial court grants relief not requested or rules on an issue never raised at trial. Jean Hoefer Toal, et al, Appellate Practice…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bailey v. SegarsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2001
- Quality Trailer Products, Inc. v. CSL Equipment Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2002
- Matthews v. Richland County School District OneCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2004