1. May a federal district court consistent with this
Court's "the law of the case" doctrine grant judgment asa
matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) to respondents
after petitioner had submitted her case in chief to the jury
when the court before trial had already ruled that it was
"up to the jury to evaluate [this] evidence" proving
respondents were negligent?

2. Is due process denied and Rule 50(a) protocol
undermined when the court of appeals fails to harmonize
the district court's pretrial ruling declaring that
petitioner's expert evidence of respondents' negligence
was fit for a jury's evaluation with its later dismissal of
her claims during trial without identifying what new
evidence had been adduced or what facts had changed to
warrant this new ruling?

May a federal district court consistent with the law-of-the-case doctrine grant judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) to respondents after petitioner had submitted her case in chief to the jury when the court before trial had already ruled that it was up to the jury to evaluate the evidence proving respondents were negligent?