instructions and verdict form, Miller argues that we should adopt an exception to Rule 51 that would permit a plaintiff to request nominal damages after the verdict has been read, but before the jury is discharged. He suggests that the proposed exception should apply when: (1) a plaintiff brings multiple constitutional claims and one of the claims has actual damages and one does not; and (2) the jury finds in plaintiffs favor on the claim that does not have actual damages. Miller argues that failing to adopt this exception will invite the type of error the district court would have committed had it given a nominal damages instruction before the jury retired to deliberate. He further argues that the district court would have committed error if it had given a nominal damages instru 90) (<HOLDING>). Further, the facts of this case do not
holding that plaintiffs failure to timely challenge jury instruction regarding nominal damages on an unlawful entry claim waived her right to raise the issue on appeal holding that the defendant had waived any challenge to the district courts failure to give a limiting instruction addressing rule 404b evidence by failing to request one at trial or raise the issue on appeal holding an argument waived on appeal for failure to raise the issue in objection to the magistrates recommendation holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal holding that by fading to timely raise the issue before the trial court the defendant had waived the right to raise the issue on appeal that the trial court failed to consider less severe sanctions