“$38.5 million settles 6 OHSU cases; The decision, which follows talk of a new tort cap, may resolve financial and public-relations problems for OHSU”: The Oregonian today contains an article that begins, “In Oregon Health & Science University’s first malpractice settlement since a court removed its state protection from large damage awards, the university agreed Friday to pay $38.5 million to bring an end to six long-standing cases.”

My earlier coverage of last December’s Supreme Court of Oregon ruling appears at this link.

“West Virginia Supreme Court to hear DuPont’s appeal in $400 million case; Jury ruled company recklessly exposed toxins to residents”: This article appeared yesterday in The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware.

And The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette reported yesterday that “High court to hear appeal in DuPont case.”

“AP FOIA case has cost Supreme Court $30,000 so far”: The West Virginia Record yesterday posted online an article that begins, “The state Supreme Court has been billed about $30,000 so far for its defense of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by The Associated Press. In addition, the Court has been billed about $428,000 for defense of a federal lawsuit brought against it by Massey Energy over the way justices recuse themselves from cases.”

“Judge must accept pay raise, high court says”: The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania today contains an article that begins, “The state Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling forcing a Superior Court judge to take a pay raise she tried to decline last year. In a one-sentence ruling, the high court upheld the ruling of Commonwealth Court saying that Judge Joan Orie Melvin must take the 11 percent raise that was part of the 2005 legislative pay hike, which drew widespread criticism and was eventually repealed for legislators.”

And The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports today that “Court orders Superior Court judge to accept pay raise.”

You can access Thursday’s order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“Supreme Court brings proceedings to town”: Yesterday’s edition of The Prescott (Ariz.) Daily Courier contained an article that begins, “The wheels of justice rolled through the Glassford Hill Middle School auditorium this week. Students from throughout Yavapai County watched the five justices of the Arizona Supreme Court hear oral arguments for one civil case and one criminal case on Thursday morning.”

“High Court to hear Post appeal; Fighting for right to protect sources”: Yesterday’s edition of The National Post contained an article that begins, “The balancing of state powers in a police investigation against the right of a reporter to protect the identity of a confidential source is going to be weighed for the first time by the Supreme Court of Canada. The High Court agreed yesterday to hear an appeal filed by the National Post in what is expected to be a landmark case in the area of such confidential sources as government whistle-blowers.”

The Toronto Globe and Mail reported on Friday that “Supreme Court to hear test case on media freedom; Confidentiality of sources at issue.”

And The Canadian Press reports that “SCOC to hear case of media’s right to confidential sources.”

“Pre-emption Looms Large in Supreme Court’s Upcoming Business Cases; Four environmental cases are also on docket, plus key job bias issues”: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal provides this report.

“Court again blocks Phila.’s try for gun-control law”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

The Philadelphia Daily News reports today that “Council loses gun law skirmish in state court.”

And Reuters provides a report headlined “Philadelphia cannot set its own gun laws: court.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“FDA label doesn’t quash drug suit, court says”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A Californian who is harmed by prescription drugs can sue the manufacturer for failing to warn of potential dangers, even if the product had a federally approved label, a state appeals court has ruled. Tackling an issue that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, the appellate judges reinstated a Modesto woman’s suit Thursday against the maker of a generic version of the brand-name drug Reglan, which is used against heartburn caused by acid reflux.”

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

Somewhat relatedly, The Boston Globe today contains an editorial entitled “No haven for dangerous drugs” that begins, “In the past 11 years, drug companies have had to pull 23 unsafe drugs from the market, even though all had won approval from the US Food and Drug Administration. In spite of this shoddy record of oversight, the companies want to be protected from lawsuits by victimized patients or their survivors on the grounds that FDA approval should protect them from liability. A Supreme Court that has proven only too willing to do the bidding of industry could give the companies what they are looking for. If it does, it will be doing just what conservatives often accuse judges of doing — legislating from the bench.”

“Conservative judges fault Scalia opinion on guns”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides this report.

The two examples of written criticism that are the subject of the article can be accessed here and here.

“In Defense of Judicial Activism: D.C. v. Heller and the failures of conservative judicial restraint.” Damon W. Root has this essay online at Reason.

“The Downsides of Diversity: What Clarence Thomas might have to say about Sarah Palin.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.