“Plea doesn’t bar wrongfully convicted man’s suit against New York City: court.” Reuters has this report.

My earlier coverage of Tuesday’s en banc Second Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“‘Baby Veronica’ case: Judge ends contempt proceedings in South Carolina.” The Tulsa World has this news update.

“Pa. Supreme Court reinstates life prison term for 13-year-old Lancaster killer”: The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this news update reporting on an order that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued today.

“Municipalities ask Pennsylvania Supreme Court to let Act 13 ruling stand”: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has this news update.

“Big donors poised to give more if Supreme Court strikes limits”: The Washington Times has an article that begins, “With the Supreme Court weighing a challenge to the federal ceiling on campaign contributions by individual donors in an election cycle, a number of big donors from both parties are poised to bust through the old limits if the high court rules their way, according to a new report.”

“Supreme Court won’t take case against teacher fired for looking at porn at school”: Today’s edition of The Wisconsin State Journal contains a front page article that begins, “A Middleton teacher fired for viewing pornographic images at school can return to work after the state Supreme Court declined to take up the Middleton-Cross Plains School District’s appeal of an arbitrator’s ruling.”

“Anthrax threat prompts Nevada Supreme Court evacuation”: The Las Vegas Review-Journal has this news update.

“Utah attorney general names outside counsel for same-sex marriage appeal”: The Deseret News has this update.

“Utah AG picks outside counsel in same-sex marriage fight”: Brooke Adams of The Salt Lake Tribune has this news update.

“High court could weigh in on cellphone searches”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agrees to determine the constitutionality of state statute limiting recovery of damages to $500,000 for a tort claim against a political subdivision: You can access today’s order of Pennsylvania’s highest court granting review at this link.

In July 2013, I had this post reporting on the ruling of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirming the trial court’s reduction of the jury’s verdict from $14,036,263.39 to $500,000 pursuant to the damages cap.

“Utah law professor to make case for child-porn victims; Cassell will argue before the Supreme Court on compensation for child-pornography victims”: Brooke Adams has this front page article today in The Salt Lake Tribune.

“Ohio Attorney General Appeals Same-Sex Marriage Recognition Ruling”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed has this report.

“Killer struggles, gasps repeatedly under new 2-drug combination”: Alan Johnson of The Columbus Dispatch has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Ohio killer executed with new lethal drug combo.”

“A skeptical Supreme Court weighs the future of Harper’s controversial appointment”: In today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail, Sean Fine has a front page article that begins, “Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s newest choice for the Supreme Court of Canada ran into a wall of skepticism at a hearing into the federal government’s interpretation of the law governing appointments.” And in yesterday’s newspaper, four attorneys had an op-ed titled “Nadon nomination an embarrassment to our judicial system.”

The Toronto Star has an article headlined “Harper government trying to ‘stack’ Supreme Court, lawyer argues; Rare hearing considers eligibility of Justice Marc Nadon to join top court — an appointment challenged by lawyer Rocco Galati and the Quebec government.” In addition, Chantal Hebert has an essay titled “Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Supreme Court choice raises hackles in Quebec; An immediate ruling would have vindicated Harper’s decision to appoint Marc Nadon; But a resolution of the issue will have to wait.”

The Canadian Press reports that “Legal arguments over Nadon appointment to top court hinge on history, grammar.”

Postmedia News has a report headlined “”All federal judges should be eligible for Supreme Court, no matter their province: Peter MacKay at Nadon hearings.

CBC News reports that “Supreme Court reserves judgment on Marc Nadon’s eligibility; Court hears debate on technicalities of Marc Nadon’s appointment, but not his merits as a judge.”

CTVNews has an article headlined “Why is Marc Nadon’s appointment to Canada’s top court so controversial?”

And in the National Post, Andrew Coyne has an essay titled “Nadon Supreme Court appointment looks so dodgy it must be some clever Harper ruse.”

You can view yesterday’s oral argument in the Supreme Court of Canada by clicking here. The court has also posted online this summary of the case.

Supreme Court of Washington State declares unconstitutional a state statute that eliminates tolling of the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims belonging to minors: You can access today’s 7-to-2 ruling at this link.

“An Embarrassing Supreme Court Moment”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Why does SCOTUS want SG view on Madoff trustee suits vs bank enablers?” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report.

Second Circuit issues en banc ruling on applicability of Heck v. Humphrey to Brady claims of now-released former prison inmate: Because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit so rarely grants rehearing en banc, any such decision is bound to be worthy of mention. You can access Tuesday’s ruling, which the Second Circuit posted online today, at this link.

Nine of the 15 participating judges joined in the majority opinion, which ruled in favor of the former inmate. By contrast, the participating judges’ opinions were evenly divided 9-to-9 with regard to the Second Circuit’s ongoing controversy over whether to use “en banc” or “in banc” to describe this type of full-court hearing. Breaking the tie are two additional uses of “en banc” appearing outside of the judges’ opinions, one found in the court’s summary of the ruling that precedes the opinion and the other located in a footnote to the listing of the judges who participated in the decision.

“Federal court upholds Kentucky ban on liquor sales in groceries”: The Louisville Courier-Journal has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Gay marriage rulings in Okla., Utah build momentum”: The Associated Press has this report, along with a related item headlined “Gay marriage cases in 5 states offer broad view.”

“Court denies Drakes Bay Oyster Co., owner says fight will go to the U.S. Supreme Court”: The Marin Independent Journal has this report.

The Press Democrat of Santa Rosa, California reports that “Drakes Bay Oyster Co. plans appeal after latest court defeat.”

And Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Drakes Bay Oyster Co.’s options are running out.”

“Judge Clement makes friends with Big Oil”: Columnist James Gill has this op-ed today in The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

“Merits Appeal Shouldn’t Have Waited on Fees”: Courthouse News Service has this report.

And at the “Maryland Appellate Blog,” Steve Klepper has a post titled “Supreme Court Abrogates Fourth Circuit Rule on Time to Appeal Contractual Attorney’s Fee Award.”

You can access at this link yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers, No. 12-992.

“Gay marriage cases put Denver-based federal appeals court in spotlight”: This front page article appears today in The Denver Post.

“Gun law aimed at domestic violence offenders vexes court; Varying definitions of violence in state laws have made a federal gun law aimed at wife-beaters less effective”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in United States v. Castleman, No. 12-1371.

“Justices Seem Split on Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones, but Crucial Voice Is Silent”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court justices question size of buffer zones around Mass. abortion clinics.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court signals opposition to abortion clinic buffer zone; The Supreme Court expresses skepticism about a Massachusetts law that forbids protesters within 35 feet of abortion clinic entrances, which some justices consider a violation of free speech.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Justices Show Skepticism of 35-Foot Buffer Zones Around Abortion Clinics; ‘Why Do You Need So Much Space,’ Asked Justice Elena Kagan.”

In today’s edition of USA Today, Richard Wolf has an article headlined “Justices voice doubts about abortion clinic buffer zones; The Supreme Court will decide if restricted space is a violation of free speech.”

Cheryl Wetzstein of The Washington Times reports that “Justices’ questions appear unsympathetic to abortion clinic ‘buffer zone’ law.”

The Boston Globe reports that “Mass. abortion clinic buffer zone law is debated in US Supreme Court.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Keep your distance: Supreme Court takes up protesters outside abortion clinics; Massachusetts requires protesters to stay 35 feet away from abortion clinics; Opponents arguing before the US Supreme Court Wednesday said the law hinders the free speech of antiabortion counselors.”

Yesterday evening’s broadcast of The PBS NewsHour contained a segment titled “Supreme Court weighs clash between freedom of speech, abortion rights” featuring Marcia Coyle.

Yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment titled “Justices Appear Divided On Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones” featuring Nina Totenberg.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Buffer zones? Maybe yes, but how big?”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in McCullen v. Coakley, No. 12-1168.

“Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying”: Peter Baker has this front page article today in The New York Times.

“Conversations on the Constitution: Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.” You can view the video of Tuesday’s National Archives event by clicking here.

“Senate confirms Sandwich as judge”: The Suffolk (Va.) News-Herald has this report.