Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (2003), this court considered this very issue. In Collins, after a jury verdict was awarded against it, IGT made timely motions for JNOV, new trial, and new trial nisi remittitur. Id. at 560, 579 S.E.2d at 524. All of these motions were denied by the trial judge and IGT was served with a copy of the order on September 5, 2001. Id. IGT served a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, on September 12, 2001, which merely restated the arguments made in the post-trial motions. Id. at 561, 579 S.E.2d at 524. IGT received written notice of the entry of the order denying its motion to alter or amend on November 5, 2001, and thereafter served its notice of appeal on November 21, 2001. Id. Relying on Coward Hund Constr. Co. v. Ball Corp., 336 S.C. 1, 518 S.E.2d 56 (Ct.App.1999) (<HOLDING>) and Quality Trailer Products, Inc. v. CSL 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that issues are not waived for failing to file posttrial motions from a remand proceeding where no evidence was presented because no posttrial motions were required under those circumstances (B) holding argument based on economic loss rule waived when raised for first time in posttrial motions (C) holding that successive new trial or jnov motions do not toll the time for serving the notice of appeal (D) holding that successive rule 59e motions unlike timely filed ones do not toll the time for appealing (E) holding that successive posttrial motions do not toll the time for appeal
Output (English): holding that successive rule 59e motions unlike timely filed ones do not toll the time for appealing