“Work E-Mail Not Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege, Court Says”: At Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post that begins, “E-mails between a client and attorney are no longer considered privileged and confidential if the client writes the messages from a work e-mail account, a California court of appeals has ruled. The 3-0 decision Thursday by the Sacramento Third Appellate District means that if you intend to sue your employer, don’t discuss the suit with an attorney using company e-mail. The company has a right to access it and use it against you in a court.”
You can access last Thursday’s ruling of California’s Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District at this link.
“Judge John M. Roll appears to have died while helping to save the life of Ronald Barber, one of Ms. Giffords’s employees”: So reports an article that will appear in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.
The Washington Post offers a similar observation in a news update headlined “Videos show Tucson shooting in detail, sources say.”
“Appeals court upholds use of race in UT admissions”: The Austin American-Statesman has a blog post that begins, “The University of Texas’ consideration of race and ethnicity in undergraduate admissions passes legal muster, a federal appeals court ruled today.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link. Each of the three judges on the panel issued a separate opinion.
“Lawyer Seeking Order That ‘Will Compel … Volokh to Remove His … Blog [Post]'”: Law professor Eugene Volokh had this post yesterday at “The Volokh Conspiracy” addressing an “emergency” motion filed yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
“The Oldest Bench Ever: Extreme aging in the federal judiciary–and the trouble it causes.” Joseph Goldstein has this very interesting jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
Articles of interest recently posted online at SSRN: Professors Ryan J. Owens and Justin Wedeking have posted an article titled “Picking an Unsettled Brain: The Role of Cognitive Complexity in Ideological Drift on the United States Supreme Court” (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
Law professor Daniel A. Farber has posted an article titled “Federal Preemption of State Law: The Current State of Play” (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
Law professor Christopher Slobogin has posted an article titled “Is the Fourth Amendment Relevant in a Technological Age?” (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
And law professor Tung Yin has posted an article titled “Independent Appellate Review of Knowledge of Falsity in Defamation and False Statements Cases” (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court has posted today’s Order List at this link. The Court today granted review in a group of three consolidated cases involving the Medicaid Act. The Court also called for the views of the Solicitor General’s office on one case.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Court rejects appeal over DC gay marriage law“; “High court denies man’s gun arrest appeal“; “High court rejects Gitmo detainee appeal“; “Court turns down appeal of child porn conviction“; “Court won’t stop class-action suit against Pella“; “Court won’t reconsider Sudan lawsuit dismissal“; “Justices remove roadblocks in 2 Texas executions“; and “High court rejects appeal in Arizona execution.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court to rule on Medicaid cuts.”
“Credibility’s Power: Appellate Lawyers Should Be Forthright In Addressing Their Cases’ Weaknesses.” This month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column appears today in The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.
Starting this month, The Legal Intelligencer has scheduled my monthly column to appear on a Tuesday, which is the one day each week that the newspaper is distributed state-wide. Going forward, my column is scheduled to appear on the second Tuesday of each month.
“Change of venue likely in Jared Loughner trial; Legal experts say the trial of the Tucson shooting suspect will probably take place outside Arizona because the tragedy has affected so many potential jurors, and judges, in the state”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
Today in The San Diego Union-Tribune, Greg Moran reports that “Justice Department to fight moving Loughner case; The judge and defense lawyers are from San Diego, but a change of venue isn’t certain.”
The Arizona Republic reports that “Prosecutors want Arizona shooting case to stay in state; No motion has been filed asking to change venue.”
And in The New York Times, Lincoln Caplan has an Editorial Notebook essay entitled “The Insanity Defense, Post-Hinckley.”
“Court hears appeal from Anna Nicole Smith’s estate”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.
At The Hill’s “Pundits Blog,” Lanny J. Davis & David B. Rivkin Jr. have a post titled “The Anna Nicole Smith Supreme Court case: Uniting liberals and conservatives.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Legal soap opera runs on.”
“Donations influenced Supreme Court decision, doctor says”: This article appears today in The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch.
“Traveling man’s gun arrest appealed to high court”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.
