“Gag order lifted in part” against law blog: The “Southern District of Florida Blog” contains this post from late this afternoon.

“Alabama Supreme Court reverses course, offers hope to ill workers”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “In a 5-4 decision, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed direction and allowed lawsuits from workers who become ill many years after being exposed to dangerous chemicals. The majority said the two-year statute of limitations for filing suit begins to run when an injury manifests itself. That overruled a 1979 decision, where the court said the window for filing suit began to run at the last exposure to the chemicals — a standard that made it impossible for workers to sue if the illness did not show up for many years.”

And the blog “Alabama Appellate Watch” provides this link to the ruling, along with a post titled “Alabama Supreme Court Overrules Garrett v. Raytheon; Claim For Exposure To Toxic Substance Now Accrues When There Is A Manifest Injury.”

“Verdict in on Talent Agency Act; No clear victory for either side”: Variety provides an article that begins, “The California Supreme Court did not hand a clear victory to either side, but managers came out ahead with Monday’s much-anticipated decision about the Talent Agency Act.”

The Hollywood Reporter reports that “Court rules on Talent Agencies Act.”

And The Los Angeles Business Journal reports that “Court Rules for Manager.”

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

“Gun Shy: Has the Bush administration abandoned gun rights advocates?” Benjamin Wittes has this essay online at The New Republic.

And Jan Crawford Greenburg, at her “Legalities” blog, recently addresed the same question in a post titled “”No Gun Quickdraw.”

“Looking Anew at Campaign Cash and Elected Judges”: You can access tomorrow’s installment of Adam Liptak’s “Sidebar” column at this link.

“John Grisham’s Bad Guys Poison Rivers, Buy Judges”: Charles Taylor of Bloomberg News provides this book review.

And Tuesday’s edition of USA Today will contain a book review headlined “Grisham’s ‘Appeal’ rules harshly on bought elections.”

“Cases piling up before justices”: The San Antonio Express-News on Sunday contained an article that begins, “At a time when the Texas Supreme Court’s case backlog has reached record levels, Justice Paul Green was spending Friday driving to Corpus Christi to speak to a group of appeals lawyers.”

“U.S. and British High Courts Compared; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Baroness Brenda Hale of Richmond Share Similarities of Serving in Top Judicial Seats”: Georgetown University issued this news release today.

“Wanted: lawyers to defend accused terrorists.” Canwest News Service provides a report that begins, “The federal government is having trouble recruiting an experienced pool of lawyers to work as ‘special advocates’ on behalf of terror suspects under Canada’s security certificate law.”

“Rendell said to settle on Colins for Pa. high court job”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Gov. Ed Rendell is preparing to nominate a former Commonwealth Court judge to fill a vacant spot on the state Supreme Court, according to the judge and legislative officials who were briefed Monday by the governor’s aides. Judge James Gardner Colins, reached by telephone, said he believes his nomination may face some opposition in the Senate, but was confident he will ultimately be confirmed.”

“Did McCain take a swipe at Alito?” Today at “The Swamp” blog of The Chicago Tribune, James Oliphant had this post, along with a post titled “More on McCain and Alito.” You can read John Fund’s column, which raised this issue today, at this link.

“Court OKs ‘Choose Life’ license plates in Arizona”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle provides this news update.

The Arizona Daily Star provides a news update headlined “Court OKs anti-abortion license plates for Arizona vehicles.”

The Associated Press reports that “Court rules Arizona must allow ‘choose life’ license plate.”

And Reuters reports that “Anti-abortion slogan OK’d on Arizona license plates.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Wecht trial: Aide says staff regularly ran errands.” The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette provides this news update.

If a district court incorrectly instructs the jury on how to calculate damages, and the jury compounds the error by returning a verdict for a larger amount of damages than the erroneous instruction would permit, what is a federal appellate court to do? Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addresses whether the correct remedy is a remittitur, thereby reducing the damages down to the maximum amount that could have been awarded under the erroneous but unobjected-to instruction, or a new trial with a proper instruction on calculating damages.

The court’s opinion, written by Circuit Judge Ed Carnes, holds that a new trial is necessary. In the course of reaching that conclusion, he has the pleasure of considering whether to apply the legal doctrine “known by the delightful title of the ‘tipsy coachman.'”

Kenneth S. Geller argues FLSA class action aribtration appeal for Long John Silver’s, and loses: Here’s hoping that the seafood preparing pirate understands the unfavorable standard of review applicable to appeals from an arbitrator’s rulings. You can access today’s decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

E-commerce and personal jurisdiction: In a case involving allegations of copyright infringement via eBay, no less. Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch issued this interesting opinion today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Unanimous three-judge Ninth Circuit panel holds that Arizona’s refusal to authorize a “Choose Life” license plate violated the applicant’s First Amendment rights: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

Perhaps this gives me another opportunity to opine that “‘Choose Life’ Tags Appear Headed to Supreme Court.”

“Beware of Waiver on Appeal, Even if You Represent the Party That Won Below”: Today’s installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed at this link.

“Carona’s pro bono defense deal; A lawyer at one of the country’s top law firms has taken a professional interest in the case of the former Orange County sheriff”: The Los Angeles Times today contains an article that begins, “As former Orange County Sheriff Michael S. Carona prepares for trial on criminal charges that he sold access to his office for cash, favors and gifts, he has retained the best lawyers money can buy. And he’s getting them nearly free of charge. Jones Day, the fourth-largest law firm in the United States, with 2,300 lawyers worldwide and estimated annual revenue of $1.3 billion, has agreed to represent Carona on a pro bono basis. Based in Cleveland, the elite firm represents more than half the companies that constitute the Fortune 500. Though not unheard of, the case — defending an allegedly corrupt sheriff who is making about $200,000 a year in retirement — is unusual by pro bono standards. Typically, pro bono work involves providing legal services to society’s most vulnerable — the indigent, the homeless, the infirm.”

“Grace Bets On Winning Asbestos Lawsuits; Judge’s Ruling May Decide Firm’s Future”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Huge Lawsuit Could Change Handling of the Dead”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.

My most recent earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Pathologist Accused of Profiting From Office”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “By his own count, Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, one of the nation’s foremost forensic pathologists, has testified in more than 1,000 civil and criminal trials in his 46-year career, and opined on thousands more on television, on radio and in print. But now, for the second time in his life, Dr. Wecht is the accused. In a case Congressional Democrats say is a politically motivated prosecution by a Republican administration, Dr. Wecht, a Democrat, is in federal court here facing 41 criminal counts. Opening statements are scheduled to begin Monday. Those counts include mail fraud, wire fraud and theft of honest services. The most serious charges could send him to prison for up to 20 years per count.”

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review today contains profiles of the lead opposing lawyers in articles headlined “Jerry McDevitt’s client will be judged, but so will the government” and “Stephen Stallings is no stranger to high-profile cases.” Reporter Jason Cato will provide trial updates at this link.

And The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today offers a listing of key figures in the case; a timeline; and access to the indictments and some other key documents.

“If You Can’t Win the Case, Buy an Election and Get Your Own Judge”: Today in The New York Times, Janet Maslin has this review of John Grisham’s new book, “The Appeal.”

“Get sensible on judgeships”: The Boston Globe today contains an editorial that begins, “The process of picking the next president is hogging the spotlight, but the public should also be paying attention to the process of vetting federal judges.”

“Quizzing Justice: Justice Scalia speaks, answers questions at honors lecture.” This article appeared Friday in The Reflector of Mississippi State University.

“Holocaust Victims’ Lawyer Asks for Interest on His Fee”: Joseph Goldstein has this article today in The New York Sun.

“Death In Georgia: The high price of trying to save an infamous killer’s life.” Jeffrey Toobin has this Annals of Law article in the February 4, 2008 issue of The New Yorker.