Timothy L. Malden v. A Crown Roofing, Inc.

Whether the Due Process Clause permits a state trial court to exclude or materially curtail critical expert and damages proof through mid-trial motion practice and ambiguous off-the-record instructions, without constitutionally adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond, and then to enter a directed verdict for lack of proof.

Whether due process is violated when a state court directs a verdict against a pro se civil litigant after the record shows he attempted to offer photographs, permits, and repair invoices, but the court neither clearly clarified on the record what documentary damages proof could be admitted nor allowed a meaningful offer of proof or reopening before judg­ ment.

Whether a state appellate court may leave such federal due-process claims effectively unreviewed through an unexplained per curiam affirmance after those claims were squarely presented as grounds for reversal.