“Supreme Court rules against Anna Nicole Smith estate”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

“Supreme Court says defendants may confront lab analysts who prepare reports”: Robert Barnes will have this article Friday in The Washington Post.

“Drug Makers Win Two Supreme Court Decisions”: Adam Liptak will have this article Friday in The New York Times.

And in Friday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court protects generic drug-makers from being sued for lack of warning.”

Today’s West Virginia adventure: Instead of touring the “Bunker” (more information available here), I was back behind the wheel today to visit two relatively nearby stadiums that are home to minor league baseball teams that play in the Appalachian League.

My first stop was Hunnicutt Field, home to the Princeton Rays. From there, I traveled to Bluefield, a town that straddles the Virginia-West Virginia border, to visit Bowen Field, which this year will be the home of the Bluefield Blue Jays.

Coincidentally, Philadelphia Phillies manager Charlie Manuel‘s birthplace is just down the road a bit from Bluefield in West Virginia.

“Ruling: LA County needn’t mandate condoms in porn.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “An appeals court says the courts can’t compel public health officials to require and enforce condom use in porn.”

And XBIZ.com reported last week that “L.A. Health Officials Can’t Be Forced to Regulate Porn Shoots, Court Rules.”

You can access last Thursday’s unpublished ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District at this link.

“Wichita doctor’s plan for abortion clinic continues amid hostility”: This article appears today in The Wichita Eagle.

“Prosecution mulling whether to retry Barry Bonds”: The San Francisco Chronicle has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Feds get more time to decide on Bonds retrial.”

“Anna Nicole Smith heirs are losers in Supreme Court; A ruling by the Supreme Court favors heirs of billionaire J. Howard Marshall, the late husband of Anna Nicole Smith; Justices say a Texas probate court, rather than a California bankruptcy judge, had the authority to resolve the Marshall estate dispute”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Anna Nicole Smith’s Estate Loses at High Court on Fortune.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rules against Anna Nicole Smith estate.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Bankruptcy courts’ powers pared down; Anna Nicole Smith’s estate loses a plea for some $89 million from her now-deceased tycoon husband’s riches, and the specialized federal bankruptcy courts lose some of their authority in a 5-4 decision by the Court.”

“CSI meets Law & Order: Supreme Court rules lab techs must testify in court; The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the practice of permitting substitutes to testify about forensic evidence violates defendants’ constitutional rights to confront their accusers.” Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “New curb on crime lab reports; Once more divided 5-4 on how to define the right of a criminal suspect to confront accusers, the Court rules that, if a crime lab report is offered by prosecutors, the person who did the test and prepared the report must testify, and a supervisor cannot do so in the absence of that technician.”

“Makers of generic drugs don’t have to warn of new dangers, Supreme Court rules; The Supreme Court rules that makers of generics, unlike makers of brand-name drugs, do not have to warn patients of newly revealed problems; In another ruling, justices supported drug makers buying or selling prescription records from patients for ‘marketing’ purposes”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Generic-Drug Makers Shielded From Lawsuits, Top Court Says.”

And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rejects generic drug labeling suits.”

“Railroads Lose Supreme Court Fight Over Worker Suits”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Court strikes law restricting sale of prescription info”: Joan Biskupic of USA Today has this news update.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court strikes down law restricting sale of prescription drug info; In a closely-watched case affecting data mining and physicians’ privacy, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Vermont cannot stop prescription drug companies from accessing doctors’ prescription histories in order to market newer, more expensive drugs.”

And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court strikes down state drug data-mining law.”

Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued six rulings in argued cases.

1. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court except as to part IV and footnote 6 in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, No. 09-10876. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an opinion concurring in part. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued a dissenting opinion, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court except as to part III-A in CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, No. 10-235. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Antonin Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court except as to part III-B-2 in Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, No. 09-993. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. Justice Kennedy announced the judgment of the Court in Freeman v. United States, No. 09-10245. Justice Kennedy issued an opinion in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Chief Justice Roberts issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

5. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., No. 10-779. Justice Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

6. And Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in Stern v. Marshall, No. 10-179. Justice Scalia issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Gibsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Court: Generic drug makers not liable for warnings“; “Prescription drug data mining law struck down“; “Court says lab analyst must testify to own work“; “Court rules against Anna Nicole Smith’s estate“; “Court says crack convict can seek shorter term“; and “Court says man can collect damages from railroad.”

Carter, Phillips article on the impact of gender on U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments can be accessed online: Using this link, via SSRN. My earlier coverage of the article can be accessed here.

“Free to Search and Seize”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, David K. Shipler has an op-ed that begins, “This spring was a rough season for the Fourth Amendment.”

In Bashman news from Australia: The Warwick Daily News reports today that “Father and son bash man.”

“Droney Breezes Through D.C. Confirmation Hearing For 2nd Circuit”: This article appears today in The Hartford Courant.

“Court upholds malpractice cap”: Today’s edition of The Charleston (W. Va.) Daily Mail contains an article that begins, “The state Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a key portion of the state’s painstakingly crafted medical malpractice reforms.”

And MetroNews reports that “Supreme Court Upholds Cap On Medical Malpractice Damages.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia at this link.

“Will Conrad Black go back to jail?” This article appears today in The Toronto Globe and Mail.

CBC News reports that “Conrad Black could avoid more prison time; Judge in Chicago could send one-time media mogul back to prison.”

And The Canadian Press reports that “Conrad Black may escape more jail time Friday.”

“Licking County Prosecutor Ken Oswalt to appeal rape decision”: Today’s edition of The Newark (Ohio) Advocate contains an article that begins, “Licking County Prosecutor Ken Oswalt plans to appeal an Ohio Supreme Court decision that found charging children younger than 13 with statutory rape violated constitutional rights.”

My earlier coverage of this case appears here and here.

“Vt. Supreme Court hears police e-privacy case”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Cloud Over the Court”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “The Supreme Court is not bound by the code of conduct for federal judges, but justices have said they follow it voluntarily.”

“Wal-Mart Case: Another Loss for Trial Lawyers; The Supreme Court’s ruling is the latest in a series of decisions that make it clear the justices aim to curb mass litigation.” Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has an article that begins, “No one will be happier to see the Supreme Court begin its summer vacation than the nation’s trial lawyers.”

And Margaret Cronin Fisk and Karen Gullo of Bloomberg News report that “Costco Women’s Suit May be Imperiled by Supreme Court’s Wal-Mart Decision.”

Three-judge First Circuit panel, “[a]fter consulting with the en banc judges,” overrules decision of an earlier three-judge panel in another case: Rehearing en banc can be a costly and time-consuming process to undertake when a federal appellate court realizes that one of its earlier decisions reached an incorrect result. In a ruling issued yesterday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit employed a streamlined alternate approach that produced the same outcome without all the cost, delay and inconvenience.