Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc.
Petition for certiorari denied on December 13, 2021
Issue: Whether, under Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant who did not file a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law in the district court can nonetheless raise a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to damages on appeal.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Compassionate release, the First Step Act, and jurors on social media (Ellena Erskine, November 5, 2021)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 08/02/2021 | Application (21A14) for a stay of mandate, submitted to The Chief Justice. |
| 08/04/2021 | Letter of applicant Fredric N. Eshelman filed. |
| 08/04/2021 | UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicant, IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, case Nos. 20-1329 and 20-1376, is hereby stayed pending receipt of a response, due on or before Wednesday, August 11, 2021, by 3:00 p.m. ET, and further order of the undersigned or of the Court. |
| 08/11/2021 | Response to application from respondent Puma Biotechnology, Inc. filed. |
| 08/12/2021 | Reply of applicant Fredric N. Eshelman filed. |
| 08/13/2021 | Application (21A14) denied by The Chief Justice. The order heretofore issued by The Chief Justice on August 4, 2021, is vacated. The application for a stay of mandate is, in all respects, denied. |
| 10/18/2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 19, 2021) |
| 11/18/2021 | Waiver of right of respondent Puma Biotechnology, Inc. to respond filed. |
| 11/23/2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/10/2021. |
| 12/13/2021 | Petition DENIED. |