District Court’s response to the jury “had a direct bearing on the critical fact issue of whether S&S Services, Inc. had sufficiently mitigated damages,” that issue was wholly irrelevant — the jury determined that S&S was simply not entitled to relief and thus never reached the question of S&S’s damages. Accordingly, the orders of the District Court will be AFFIRMED. 1 . S&S also argues that the District Court should have granted its motion for summary judgment on certain of Rogers's counterclaims. Because the case proceeded to trial, however, our review is relevantly limited to the District Court’s denial of S&S’s Rule 50 motion. See Hopp v. City of Pittsburgh, 194 F.3d 434, 439 n. 3 (3d Cir.1999); see also, e.g., Baughman v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc., 530 F.2d 529, 532-33 (3d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by Croker v.
holding that a motion denying summary judgment will not be reviewed on appeal from a jury verdict where sufficient evidence supports the jurys verdict holding a directed verdict motion stating specific grounds is a prerequisite for a subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict holding that a jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on the evidence holding that some evidence was presented to support the jurys verdict that defendant breached contract and therefore trial court did not err in denying defendants motion for directed verdict or jnov holding that the verdict must be sustained if there is any competent evidence to support the verdict