Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Copeland and Stokes. Additionally, Minor argues the family court erred in allowing the State to call Eric as a witness at trial. Minor contends the State sought solely t failing to grant its directed verdict motion as to grand larceny when the State failed to present evidence the items stolen from Izzard were worth more than one thousand dollars. This issue is not preserved for our review because it was not raised at trial. See Guider v. Churpeyes, Inc., 370 S.C. 424, 430 n. 2, 635 S.E.2d 562, 566 n. 2 (Ct.App.2006) (finding defendant did not preserve argument regarding malice and damages in malicious prosecution claim when failure to meet those elements was not argued in directed verdict motion); see also Scoggins v. McClellion, 321 S.C. 264, 267, 468 S.E.2d 12, 14 (Ct.App.1996) (<HOLDING>); Hendrix v. E. Distribution, Inc., 316 S.C. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict (B) holding defendant did not preserve argument regarding element of negligence in tort claim when only causation and punitive damages were raised in directed verdict motion (C) holding that objection made at directed verdict stage and in motion for new trial were timely (D) holding that even if the trial court had erred in denying the defendants motion for a directed verdict on punitive damages the error was harmless because the jury found in favor of the defendant and never reached the punitive damages claims (E) holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim
Output (English): holding that objection made at directed verdict stage and in motion for new trial were timely