Mehmet Emin Tatas v. Ali Baba's Terrace Inc., et al.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a civil jury trial and preserves the jury's role as fact finder under proper legal instructions. This Court has repeatedly held that any impairment of that right must be reviewed with the "utmost care" and "the most exacting scrutiny." Dimick v. Schiedt,293 U.S. 474, 486 (1935); City ofMorgantown v. Royal Ins. Co., 337 U.S. 254, 258 (1949). The questions presented are:

1. Whether the Seventh Amendment and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 61 permit a court of appeals to affirm a general civil verdict on harmless-error grounds where the district court submitted a dispositive theory of liability on a general verdict form without instructing the jury on its essential legal elements, such that the reviewing court cannot determine whether the jury rejected the theory on the facts or failed to consider it under the governing law, despite a circuit conflict over the General Verdict Rule.

2. Whether, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 46 and 51 (d)(1)(B) and the Seventh Amendment, a party forfeits a timely requested jury instruction supported by the record merely because counsel later expressed general satisfaction with the final jury charge, contrary to the approach of several courts of appeals and this Court’s preservation principles reflected in Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co., 370 U.S. 19 (1962).