1. Did the Nevada Supreme Court have the right in its Order of Affirmance to blatantly disregard past decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court as to statutory interpretation; and to declare that Rule 50(b) of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure was ambiguous, and to not follow the law?

2. Did the Nevada Supreme Court and the Trial Court have the right to become the trier of fact and overturn the decision of a Jury, who served for 13 days, while totally ignoring the substantial circumstantial evidence and jury instructions that supported the jury's verdict?

3. Did the Nevada Supreme Court and the Trial Court have the right to remain silent and refuse to acknowledge the numerous nefarious acts of the defendant which entitled the petitioners to have a jury determine punitive damages?

Whether the Nevada Supreme Court erred in disregarding past Supreme Court decisions and declaring a state procedural rule ambiguous