Appeals of amended judgments

1. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a State to enforce a separate amended judgment imposing substantial financial liability when a notice of appeal directed to that amended judgment was dismissed as duplicative of an earlier appeal from a different judgment, and later requests for review were denied by reference to that dismissal, leaving the amended judgment without meaningful appellate review. 2. Whether the Due Process Clause permits a state court, through an amended judgment entered after a jury trial expressly limited to nuisance, to add a substantive determination that a tenant “ shall retain possession ” and to impose substantial contract-based attorney-fee liability, where an earlier filed order recognized a triable factual dispute concerning nonpayment of rent and allegedly false rent receipts, the jury made no findings on rent payment, receipt authenticity, waiver, contractual assent, or continuing possession, and the amended judgment thereafter received no meaningful independent appellate review. 3. Whether due process is satisfied when a substantial amended monetary judgment arising from a limited civil action is repeatedly confined to an appellate path that does not provide independent review of that amended judgment, while requests for transfer or review in the California Court of Appeal are denied and enforcement continues.