“Feds rights to baseball drug tests back in court”: The Associated Press provides this report about a case reargued today before an eleven-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Court reverses initiative petition ruling”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court Thursday ruled that an Oklahoma law that bars nonresidents from circulating initiative petitions in the state is unconstitutional and reversed a lower court that had upheld the statute.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at this link.

“Obscenity Conviction for Adult-to-Adult E-mail About Sex With Children”: At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has this post about a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

The October 9, 2006 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com was headlined “Text This: Words Alone Can Violate Federal Obscenity Laws.”

“Bumbling Good Samaritans can be sued, state court rules”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update that begins, “A Good Samaritan whose well-meaning but careless rescue effort injures an accident victim can be sued for damages, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The court said California’s shield against liability for emergency help applies only to people trying to provide medical help.”

Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “California Supreme Court allows good Samaritans to be sued for nonmedical care; The ruling stems from a case in which a woman pulled a crash victim from a car ‘like a rag doll,’ allegedly aggravating a vertebrae injury.”

law.com reports that “Calif. Supreme Court Ruling May Deter Good Samaritans.”

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Calif. Court: Would-be Good Samaritan can be sued.”

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

“Supreme Court sends Plan B case back to county”: The State Journal-Register of Springfield, Illinois has a news update that begins, “Illinois Supreme Court justices, in a 5-2 decision issued this morning, sidestepped the issue of whether pharmacy owners have a state-granted ‘right of conscience’ to turn away customers seeking so-called ‘morning-after pills.'”

And The Associated Press reports that “‘Morning-after’ pill ruling allows debate to continue.”

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

“Supreme Court upholds Allen reprimand”: Paul Flemming of The Pensacola News Journal has an update that begins, “Judge Michael E. Allen will be publicly reprimanded for his scathing published opinion that said a fellow 1st District Court of Appeal Judge cast a corrupt vote in a case. The Florida Supreme Court today accepted the recommendations of a Judicial Qualifications Commission hearing panel that Allen face reprimand for the ethics violations brought against him.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Fla. appellate judge to get public reprimand.”

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

“Judge who sued Herald reprimanded by SJC”: The Boston Globe has a news update that begins, “Superior Court Judge Ernest B. Murphy was publicly reprimand today by the state’s highest court for writing threatening letters to the publisher of the Boston Herald after winning a $2 million libel verdict against the newspaper.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Mass. court reprimands judge libeled by newspaper.”

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

An insurance company’s notice of cancellation sent by certified mail isn’t “mailed” under state law, the Washington State Supreme Court holds: You can access today’s ruling, on certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, at this link.

“Appeals Court Rejects Request for New Trial in Pants Case”: The Washington Post has a news update that begins, “The D.C. Court of Appeals this morning rejected Roy L. Pearson Jr.’s request for a new trial regarding his highly publicized $54 million lawsuit against a neighborhood dry cleaners over a pair of lost pants.”

I’m told that today’s ruling of the D.C. Court of Appeals is available at this link, although that court’s web site isn’t functioning for me at the moment. I’ve posted a back-up copy of the ruling at this link.

“The complexities of Canada’s first war-crimes trial: Closed-door testimony, unnamed witnesses makes Rwandan genocide case hard to evaluate as it comes to a close.” The Globe and Mail of Toronto contains this article today.

“The Torture Report”: An editorial that appears today in The New York Times states that “a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.”

And The Boston Globe today contains an editorial entitled “Torture starts at the top.”

Another expletive aired on live TV proves not so fleeting: The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today that “FCC gets complaints on Utley’s on-air F-bomb.”

This blog’s earlier coverage (with relevant YouTube clips) can be accessed here.

“Pros and cons of Prop. 8: It falls to Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to present a thoughtful legal argument for, or against, the initiative.” Today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial that begins, “Among the many legal opinions on Proposition 8 that the California Supreme Court will consider, the most high-profile one will come from Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown. By Friday, Brown is supposed to deliver his legal brief on whether the initiative banning same-sex marriage is an amendment to the state Constitution or, as opponents claim, a fundamental revision of it, which would require far more than a simple majority vote to take effect.”

“Justices OK attorney ads noting they’re ranked ‘best'”: This article appears today in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger.

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.

“Affirmative action and government: We should end the use of race, ethnicity — and gender — in the awarding of federal contracts.” The Los Angeles Times today contains an editorial that begins, “Will President-elect Barack Obama be a real agent of change, as he has promised, or will it be business as usual for racial and ethnic preferences in the Obama administration? A ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington may give us an opportunity to find out.”

I provided this coverage of the Federal Circuit’s ruling on the day it issued last month.

“Illinois Court Won’t Hear Plea to Oust Blagojevich”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Chicago Tribune reports today that “Blagojevich strikes back: State high court rejects call to declare governor unfit; Defense attorney: House committee a ‘witch hunt’; U.S. to try to freeze campaign account.”

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that “Court rejects Madigan’s case against governor.”

USA Today reports that “Court denies request to oust Blagojevich; Amid political tiffs, governor ‘can’t wait’ to tell his story.”

And The Wall Street Journal reports that “Prospects Fade for Quick Ouster of Blagojevich.”

“How the Illinois, Minnesota Senate Outcomes Could Affect the Judiciary Committee”: David Ingram has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”