How Appealing



Thursday, January 23, 2014

“Orange County lawyer disbarred for possessing child pornography”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Lawyers will be disbarred over child porn.”

And at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean — who previously wrote a lengthy article about the case for California Lawyer magazine — has a post titled “Child Porn Possession Means Lawyer Disbarment in All Cases.”

You can access today’s unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link.

Posted at 4:55 PM by Howard Bashman



“MBS investors bring in Paul Clement to appeal N.Y. timeliness opinion”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

Posted at 4:48 PM by Howard Bashman



“High-court majority reaffirms Freshwater’s dismissal”: The Columbus Dispatch has an article that begins, “The Ohio Supreme Court will not revisit its 4-3 decision that found a Mount Vernon teacher was legally dismissed for insubordination when he refused to remove religious symbols from his classroom.”

My earlier coverage of the ruling appears at this link.

Posted at 1:46 PM by Howard Bashman



“Constitution Check: Has the Supreme Court already settled the fate of gay marriage bans?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

Posted at 1:35 PM by Howard Bashman



“Opinion analysis: Justices unimpressed with Federal Circuit’s mastery of federal procedure curriculum.” Ronald Mann has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

Posted at 12:14 PM by Howard Bashman



“Circuit Split Watch: Are ‘Boobies’ Bracelets the New Black Armbands?” Michelle Olsen has this post today at her “Appellate Daily” blog.

Posted at 10:28 AM by Howard Bashman



“Drugmakers May Face Liability For Design Defects in Pa. Court”: Max Mitchell has this front page article, in which I am quoted, in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

And today at the defense-oriented “Drug and Device Law” blog, James M. Beck has a post titled “Lance — If This Is Negligence, Who Needs Strict Liability?

Tuesday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in this case, in which I represented the plaintiff on appeal, consisted of a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion.

The following merits briefs filed in Pennsylvania’s highest court in this case can be accessed online: (1) Wyeth’s Brief for Appellant; plaintiff’s Brief for Appellee/Cross-Appellant; the amicus brief of the American Association for Justice and the Pennsylvania Association for Justice in support of plaintiff; Wyeth’s Reply Brief for Appellant/Brief for Cross-Appellee; and the plaintiff’s Reply Brief for Cross-Appellant.

In addition to The Legal Intelligencer, thus far Dan Packel of Law360 (subscription required for full access) and Jessica Dye of Reuters (subscription required to access) have reported on the ruling. And Bloomberg BNA’s Product Safety & Liability Reporter (subscription required) is also preparing a report on the decision.

Posted at 10:24 AM by Howard Bashman



“Supreme Court will hear Fifth Third 401(k) lawsuit; Employees: Bank knew stock too risky for 401(k).” The Cincinnati Enquirer has this report.

Posted at 8:45 AM by Howard Bashman



“Drakes Bay Oyster Co. files court action to remain open while preparing for Supreme Court”: The Marin Independent Journal has this report.

Posted at 8:42 AM by Howard Bashman



“Supreme Court ruling on Abramski could limit Obama’s radical, gun-control aims; ATF using straw purchase law to expand government control of private firearms transfers”: Columnist Emily Miller has this essay online at The Washington Times.

Posted at 8:34 AM by Howard Bashman



“Anti-abortion group seeks Supreme Court changes; Selection of justices key to fight against abortion, group says”: The Topeka Capital-Journal has this report.

Posted at 8:29 AM by Howard Bashman



“Supreme Court considers who should pay damages to child-porn victim; The justices are asked to decide whether the Crime Victims’ Rights Act should let a child-pornography victim collect $3.4 million in damages from one of thousands who had photos of her rape”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Dallas Morning News reports today that “Supreme Court struggles to determine how to compensate child-porn victim.”

And Cheryl Wetzstein of The Washington Time reports that “Supreme Court struggles with restitution for child porn.”

Posted at 8:26 AM by Howard Bashman