SCOTUS Denies Review in Three Civil Procedure Cases

The Supreme Court today denied review in several cases, including three civil procedure cases:

Andrews v. Pincay--Questions Presented: (1) May court of appeals review sufficiency of evidence supporting civil jury verdict, and if so to what extent, when party requesting review made motion for judgment as matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) before submission of case to jury, but neither renewed that motion under Rule 50(b) after jury's verdict nor moved for new trial under Rule 59? (2) Does Johnson v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 344 U.S. 48 (1952), bar federal appellate court from granting judgment as a matter of law to party whose post-verdict filing, while making clear that party is entitled to judgment, does not expressly ask for such relief?

Bidgood v. Cavendish, Vt.--Questions Presented: (1) Is landowner's private property taken without due process of law when trial court refuses to reopen trial in contravention of conditional orders of dismissal? (2) Is landowner denied right of free speech, right of association, right of procedural due process, right of substantive due process, right of equal protection of laws, right of interstate travel, and protections secured by 23 U.S.C. § 206, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 when trial court refuses to reopen trial in contravention of conditional orders of dismissal?

Mosimann v. MSAS Cargo Int'l--Question Presented: Are there mitigating circumstances that might justify late submission of court materials and acceptance of such materials by U.S. courts?

Further details of these cases are available to BNA Subscribers at http://pubs.bna.com/ip/bna/lwt.nsf/StatusCasesDeniedRev.