Available online from law.com: Pamela A. MacLean of The National Law Journal has an article headlined “Bid to Sue 4th Circuit’s Former Chief Judge Over Fees Falters” reporting on a non-precedential decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued on Wednesday. It is interesting to note that Eighth Circuit Chief Judge James B. Loken sat by designation as the trial judge in the case.
An article headlined “2nd Circuit Holds Magistrates Lack Power to Remand” reports on this ruling issued Wednesday.
And in other news, “Miami Law Firms in Talks With State Supreme Court Justice.”
“Did Affirmative Action Really Hinder Clarence Thomas? The Supreme Court Justice says racial preference made it impossible for him to find a law firm job; His black classmates tell a different story.” Tamara Loomis will have this article in the June 2008 issue of The American Lawyer.
Welcome to “How Appealing” located at its new web host: If this page looks somewhat different than normal, the reason is that some of the images normally present on this page are not yet loading normally, and the font in which the posts on this page appear is not the same as before.
Once the internet’s Domain Name Service begins to recognize howappealing.law.com as the IP address of 65.181.161.172/blog/, then this page will appear the same as at its former web host.
Update: The issues noted in this post appear to have all been resolved.
WSJ.com’s “Law Blog” interviews Justice Antonin Scalia about his new book: The interview appears in three parts: here, here, and here.
For the record, the author of “How Appealing” has taken no steps to arrange an interview with Justice Scalia, although I will be in the same room as him one week from today in Farmington, Pennsylvania (of all places).
“Logjam: Politicians can’t agree who should fill vacancies on the nation’s most reliably conservative appellate court’ If the logjam lasts past November, the court may take a turn to the left.” This article will appear in the June 2008 issue of ABA Journal magazine.
Three-judge federal district court rejects argument that the U.S. Congress in 2006 lacked sufficient evidence of racial discrimination to extend Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for another twenty-five years: Circuit Judge David S. Tatel issued today’s lengthy decision on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Court: Voting Rights Act provision deemed constitutional.”
Divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel grants a new trial to man convicted of soliciting the murders of an Assistant U.S. Attorney, an IRS Special Agent, and a U.S. District Judge: You can access today’s ruling at this link. Interestingly, another Ninth Circuit judge served by designation as the trial court judge in the case, making the score 2-2 among Ninth Circuit judges over whether the defendant’s new trial motion should have been granted.
“Will the Supreme Court Play Ball With Fantasy Baseball Leagues?” FOXNews.com provides this report.
“Fieger jury signals verdict could take a while”: David Ashenfelter has this article today in The Detroit Free Press.
“Court finds Texas A&M administrators can be held liable in bonfire collapse lawsuit”: The Waco Tribune-Herald today contains an article that begins, “Twelve former Texas A&M University administrators are not immune from lawsuit claims filed by the families of three students killed and two injured in the November 1999 collapse of the Aggie bonfire, a divided Waco appeals court has ruled.”
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram today reports that “Texas A&M officials can’t claim immunity in bonfire case, court rules.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court says A&M officials not immune in bonfire suits.”
Wednesday’s ruling of the Tenth Court of Appeals of Texas consisted of a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion.
In news from the Canadian province of Saskatchewan: The Regina Leader-Post reports that “Supreme Court sides with Sask. anti-abortion protester.”
And Reuters reports that “Top court won’t hear abortion picketer case.”
“Foes, in court, seek to delay gay marriages”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
Today in The Los Angeles Times, Maura Dolan reports that “State urges California Supreme Court not to delay same-sex marriages; Delaying enactment of the ruling would improperly mix judicial and political affairs, attorney general argues; Opponents had requested a stay until November, when a measure will appear on state ballot.”
And Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Supreme Court urged to finalize gay-marriage ruling; Opponents seek delay until Nov.”
“Courts Reject Two Major Vioxx Verdicts”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
Today in The Houston Chronicle, Mary Flood reports that “Court tosses Vioxx award; Houston panel rules plaintiff will get none of the $26 million.”
The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reports that “Vioxx awards overturned; Drugmaker wins appeals in Texas and New Jersey.”
And Texas Lawyer reports that “Plaintiffs Lawyer Lanier to Appeal Vioxx Reversal.”
Yesterday morning, I had this post linking to both rulings.
“Verdict mixed in S.F. steroid trial of coach”: Lance Williams and Bob Egelko have this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
“Texas Loses Court Ruling Over Taking of Children”: The New York Times contains this article today.
The Washington Post reports today that “High Court in Texas Backs Sect’s Parents.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “FLDS ruling upheld by Texas Supreme Court; The state failed to show that the polygamist sect’s children were in imminent danger when they were seized, justices agree; Experts say each case will have to be handled individually.”
USA Today reports that “Ruling upheld in polygamist case; 126 kids may soon return to sect ranch.”
The Houston Chronicle reports that “State officials prepare to reunite sect children with parents.”
The Dallas Morning News reports that “Children removed from polygamist ranch could be going home.”
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram contains an article headlined “Texas Supreme Court: CPS overstepped its bounds in polygamy sect case.”
The San Antonio Express-News reports that “State is set to return children to sect parents.”
Texas Lawyer reports that “Texas Supreme Court Nixes Removal of Children From Polygamists’ Ranch.”
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that “Texas Supreme Court says the state crossed the line by keeping FLDS kids in custody.”
And from National Public Radio, yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Texas Court Agrees Children Must Be Returned,” while today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Court Deems Polygamist Kids’ Removal Unlawful.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
“34 Convicted in Display At U.S. Supreme Court; Protesters Had Decried Guantanamo”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
“Court To Decide If Spitzer Overreached on Grasso”: Today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein has an article that begins, “The state’s highest court is gearing up to decide whether Eliot Spitzer overreached four years ago when, as attorney general, he sought to force a former New York Stock Exchange chief, Richard Grasso, to relinquish his $187.5 million pay package.”
“Future Gay Unions Face Legal Hurdles in California”: law.com provides a report that begins, “Same-sex couples excited by the California Supreme Court’s two-week-old decision declaring their right to wed are already booking dates to get licenses. But what will happen to those marriages if voters approve a proposed constitutional amendment in November that would restrict marriage to the union of a man and a woman? There is no clear answer, but attorneys on both sides of the issue have staked out their positions and are ready for a fight.”
“Appeals Court Rules Against Burlington Student”: The Hartford Courant today contains an article that begins, “Ruling in a case that addresses broad questions of the boundaries of free speech in the Internet age, a federal appeals court on Thursday effectively ended a Burlington student’s effort to serve as a class officer and speak at graduation.”
And The Associated Press reports that “NY court finds speech made outside of school can be punished.”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Second Circuit ruling appears at this link.
