How Appealing



Wednesday, March 30, 2011

“Today we examine a question of first impression in the Ninth Circuit: whether the search of a laptop computer that begins at the border and ends two days later in a Government forensic computer laboratory almost 170 miles away can still fall within the border search doctrine.” So begins the opinion that the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today. The majority holds that the border search doctrine applies.

Posted at 2:50 PM by Howard Bashman



“Pa. and Barnes must explain why relocation case should not be reopened”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an article that begins, “Litigation lives on over whether the Barnes Foundation should be allowed to move its priceless collection of art from Merion to Philadelphia.”

And The Main Line (Pa.) Times reports that “Judge sets briefing schedule in new Barnes-move challenge.”

Posted at 10:12 AM by Howard Bashman



“Slidell woman’s case hits high court; Patient seeks right to sue over medication warnings”: This article appeared yesterday in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans.

Posted at 8:52 AM by Howard Bashman



“Roberts, Alito leave imprint on rulings; Each is conservative mainstay”: Ben Conery has this article today in The Washington Times.

Posted at 8:46 AM by Howard Bashman



“Wal-Mart women’s class action before Supreme Court”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

And The Christian Science Monitor has articles headlined “Supreme Court wrestles with sheer size of suit against Wal-Mart; Supreme Court justices ask: How can you determine damages for each woman in the class-action suit against Wal-Mart? Some 1.5 million women are suing Wal-Mart on sex-discrimination claims” and “Wal-Mart case highlights status of women in US workplace; The Supreme Court is considering a class-action lawsuit from more than one million women claiming sex discrimination; Here is a snapshot of how women are faring in the workplace.”

Posted at 8:30 AM by Howard Bashman



“Giambi: I got steroids from Barry Bonds’ trainer.” Lance Williams has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

In today’s edition of The San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz has an article headlined “Bonds trial: Giambi brothers say Anderson supplied them with ‘the cream’ and ‘the clear.’

The New York Times reports that “Players Detail Dealings With Bonds’s Trainer.”

And The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Barry Bonds trial: A strong case for steroid use, but the charge is perjury; Baseball’s Giambi brothers, admitted steroid users, testify at the Barry Bonds perjury trial in a San Francisco federal court that they knew what Bonds’s trainer was giving them.”

Posted at 8:25 AM by Howard Bashman



“Register reporter called to jury duty for Joshua Komisarjevsky Cheshire triple murder trial”: The New Haven Register contains this article today.

Posted at 8:20 AM by Howard Bashman



“U.S. Supreme Court rejects $14 million judgment against New Orleans district attorney’s office”: This article appears today in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans.

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “$14 Million Jury Award to Ex-Inmate Is Dismissed.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rules against exonerated death row inmate who sued prosecutors.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects damages for innocent man who spent 14 years on death row; In a 5-4 ruling, justices overturn a jury verdict awarding $14 million to John Thompson, who had sued then-New Orleans Dist. Atty. Harry Connick Sr. because prosecutors hid a blood test that would have proved his innocence in a murder case.”

USA Today reports that “Exonerated inmate won’t get $14M.”

And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “High court says exonerated inmate cannot sue prosecutors.”

Posted at 8:15 AM by Howard Bashman



“U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Federal Witness Law in Local Shooting Case; Though the expectation is that it will set broader precedent, the court could issue a narrower opinion specific to this case, avoiding setting a new standard for the statute”: This article appears today in The Lakeland (Fla.) Ledger.

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Fowler v. United States, No. 10-5443.

Posted at 7:50 AM by Howard Bashman