Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): should be excluded as part of his motion to dismiss, which the trial court again denied. This case can be distinguished from Stewart, supra, and Cole, supra, because Hilton did make a contemporaneous objection when the contested evidence was introduced. Although there are no cases involving the particular situation in this case, a review of Stewart, Cole, and other cases leads us to the conclusion that Hilton’s argument is preserved for our review. See Vaughn v. State, 338 Ark. 220, 992 S.W.2d 785 (1999) (stating that where defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress that was not ruled upon, defendant was required to renew objection and obtain ruling when that evidence was introduced at trial to preserve issue for appeal); Holt v. State, 15 Ark. App. 269, 692 S.W.2d 265 (1985) (<HOLDING>). In reviewing the denial of a motion to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that even when a defendant moves under rule 50 at the close of plaintiffs evidence  and autocentro did not even do that  if a defendant wishes to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the posttrial stage with a view to having denial of that motion considered by the court of appeals the defendant is required to have moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence (B) holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence (C) holding that a statute of limitations defense first raised in a motion to dismiss at the close of the plaintiffs evidence was untimely (D) holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion (E) holding that a litigants summary judgment motion does not satisfy the requirement for a motion for jmol at the close of the evidence
Output (English): holding that even when a defendant moves under rule 50 at the close of plaintiffs evidence  and autocentro did not even do that  if a defendant wishes to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the posttrial stage with a view to having denial of that motion considered by the court of appeals the defendant is required to have moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence