Legal Opinion · Dissent

Elam v. South Carolina Department of Transportation

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided September 13, 2004No. 25869Published

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

  1. Bailey v. SegarsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2001
  2. Quality Trailer Products, Inc. v. CSL Equipment Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2002
  3. Matthews v. Richland County School District OneCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API