improper argument, remark, or other misconduct.” Behseleck v. Andrus, 60 S.D. 204, 244 N.W. 268, 270 (1932) (citing 3 CJ 864). When a party fails to object to argument of counsel at trial, he deprives the trial court the opportunity to rule on the issue and admonish the jury or give a curative instruction. Janklow, 2005 SD 25, ¶ 47, 693 N.W.2d at 701. When a party deprives the trial court an opportunity to rule on the issue by failing to object to argument at the time the objectionable comments are made, he waives his right to argue the issue on appeal. Id. ¶ 47, 693 N.W.2d at 701 (quoting State v. Boston, 2003 SD 71, ¶ 26, 665 N.W.2d 100, 109 (citing State v. Corey, 2001 SD 53, ¶ 9, 624 N.W.2d 841, 844); City of Sioux Falls v. Kelley, 513 N.W.2d 97, 110 (S.D.1994) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>); see Anderson, 441 N.W.2d at 677 (S.D.1989)
holding that the plaintiff waived his right to argue an issue on appeal by failing to object below thereby denying the trial court the opportunity to correct its mistakes holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal holding that plaintiffs failure to object to the improper comments of defendant during closing arguments resulted in waiver of plaintiffs right to argue the issue on appeal because the trial court was not given an opportunity to rule on the issue holding that failure to object to trial courts refusal of further instruction to jury during deliberation results in waiver of issue on appeal holding that the failure to identify or argue an issue in an opening brief constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal