UPDATED 03/15/16
That's it! Trump won 100% of the delegates from Northern Mariana's which is the eighth required
delegation to the convention where he has more than 50% of the delegates. Only Trump can, at this point, have his name so placed.
"So its Super Threesday caucus was done overnight, and Trump
won all nine delegates. In doing so, the Northern Marianas became the eighth state or territory in which Trump won a majority of the delegates. (The others: South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Hawaii and Mississippi.) And according to
the rules of the Republican convention, a candidate must "demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination." No eight states, no nomination.
That's the fabled Rule 40, which governs how the nomination process works"
UPDATED 03/09/16
Donald Trump won 11 of Hawaii's 19 delegates to the GOP convention-more than 50% of the delegation which makes Hawaii his 7th of the eight required states.
UPDATED 03/08/16 Donald Trump won of Mississippi's delegates to the GOP convention-more than 50% of the delegation which makes Mississippi his 6th of the eight required states.
Donald Trump has won a majority of 50%+ of delegates from Georgia Tennessee Massachusetts and Alabama. Those plus South Carolina give him five of the required eight in rule 40
of the rules for the Republican Convention;
In relation to Rule 40(b) of the Convention rules, Donald Trump- at this point- has "control" (to here use the more usual Term of Art) of 5 State delegations while no other candidate, right now, has such "control" of any other State so far (since Rule 40(b) requires a majority of the delegates favoring a single candidate to count as support of a State's National Convention delegation for that candidate).
RULE 40 DEFINED
"When people refer to this term, they typically mean the current version of Rule 40(b) of “The Rules of the Republican Party,” which stipulates that at the national convention, a candidate must have the support of a majority of delegates from eight different states in order to have their name place in nomination at the convention and to win the nomination."
It is beyond doubt that in due course, possibly in a week, Trump will have the required majority of the delegates from eight states.
The backers of other candidates and the media can speculate about a "brokered convention" where no candidate has the required number of delegates to be nominated as Cruz/Rubio/Kasich lose primary after primary but keep getting enough delegates to deny Trump a majority in Cleveland. But if they don't have a majority of delegates in eight states the simple fact is that their names can't be put in nomination.
However, the convention rules committee have the right to suggest a change of the rules** at the convention but that would have to be approved by a majority of the convention i.e. 1237 delegates.
What would happen if the rules committee tried to do this if Trump had an overwhelming number of states won and delegates is beyond imagining.
If the Establishment tried to pull that off they would split the party asunder. Whomever the nominated would most certainly be slaughtered in the general election as Trump supporters stayed home.
At this point rule 40 is trump's Trump card and once he gets to eight states he is effectively the nominee at that point unless, unlikely, Cruz (who has won only a majority from Texas) or Rubio can also get to the eight state level.
*** One caveat to keep in mind, however: it is all too often mistakenly assumed, by all too many, that Rule 40(b) is "permanent" in the sense that all GOP Convention rules (numbers 26 through 42 of the Party rules [including, obviously, Rule 40(b)]) are unchangeable going through the next Convention immediately following the Convention in which said rules have been adopted (thus, so this assumption opines, the rules adopted for the 2016 Convention as adopted by the 2012 Convention in Tampa must be followed by the Convention in Cleveland without exception)...
not so!
For a National Party Convention is not, in Parliamentary Procedure terms, a "continuing body" (that is: the 2016 Republican National Convention is not at all a follow-on body to the now-long ago concluded 2012 Republican National Convention [the best analogy here is to the difference between the United States Senate and the U.S House of Representatives: the U.S. House meets anew- in a new numbered 'Congress'- every two years (because it is elected "all up" in each and every biennial Federal Election) and, as a result, must re-adopt its own rules at the start of each such 'Congress' (although, of course, the new House can simply re-enact the same rules used by the House in the previous Congress, should it wish to); but the U.S. Senate is a "continuing body"- after all, 2/3 of its membership haven't even faced re-election in the most recent Federal election (absent Special Elections to fill vacancies)- and, therefore, the Senate rules are, indeed, permanent (in the sense that they carry over from Congress to Congress, unless the Senate purposely changes them: but the Senate rules need not be specifically renewed every two years)]...
because of this, the previous Convention cannot at all bind the newly meeting Convention four years later. Rule 40(b)- along with all the other Convention rules numbered 26 through 42- are "permanent" only in the sense that these cannot be changed until that next Convention actually meets (if this were notthe case, why would each quadrennial Convention even need a 'Rules Committee'? If its sole purpose were simply to make sure rules set four years earlier were being properly followed, the new Convention could merely do so as a 'Committee of the Whole').
The primary purpose of such "permanence" is to make sure that these Convention rules are not at all changed while the Primaries and Caucuses are still ongoing (while the so-called "Primary rules" [those affecting the binding and selecting of National Convention delegates in each State (or equivalent jurisdiction) prior to the National Convention (these are those GOP rules numbered 13 through 25)] may be altered between Conventions): the idea is that it would be most unfair (re: presidential campaigns strategizing to the best advantage of their respective candidates) to have different Convention rules in the offing, say, in late May going into June from those that were in effect during the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary.
The point of all this is that this summer's GOP Convention in Cleveland has the inherent power to abandon Rule 40(b) altogether (that is: if at least 1,237 delegates in that Convention, at some point, might vote to do so) because an element of Parliamentary Procedure 101 is that "a body may change its own rules at any time" (and attempts to do so- all perfectly acceptable in terms of ordinary Parliamentary Procedure- have occurred in the past, even in Republican Conventions [Ronald Reagan's (ultimately failed) attempt, after he himself had broken tradition by naming a running mate without first securing the Party nomination, to (by changing the rules of the 1976 GOP Convention at that very Convention) force then-President Ford to also pick his running mate before the Roll Call of the States on Presidential Nomination here comes immediately to mind (if only because I happen to be old enough [I was 20 years old back then] to actually remember having watched this on TV as it transpired)])
Therefore, should a majority of the Convention so decide that Rule 40(b) is, somehow, "getting in the way" (of the primary purpose of said Convention: nominating the Republican Party's candidates for President and Vice-President), then all of this current emphasis on Rule 40(b) would, in the end, make no difference in relation to who is (or is not) ultimately so nominated.
Expect one hell of an old-fashoned Convention floor "donnybrook" (should there actually be a so-called 'brokered' Republican National Convention this time round) over just such a thing (between those delegates supporting a candidate- or candidates- benefiting from Rule 40(b) and those supporting a candidate- or candidates- who do not so benefit)...
By 
