“Apple Wins Dismissal of Suit Over IPod Hearing Loss”: Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “Apple Computer Inc., the maker of the bestselling iPod digital music player, won a federal appeals court ruling upholding dismissal of a lawsuit claiming the device and headsets sold with it are defective and the company doesn’t adequately warn about the possibility of hearing loss.”
Reuters reports that “Apple wins appeal over alleged iPod hearing loss.”
Dow Jones Newswires report that “US Appeals Court Backs Dismissal Of IPod Noise Lawsuit.”
And WSJ.com’s “Digits” blog has a post titled “Court Holds IPod Blameless for Hearing Loss.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.
“California to seek review of decision overturning body-armor law; Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown will petition the state Supreme Court to review a lower court’s ruling that overturned a law barring violent offenders from possessing body armor”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
And today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “State to challenge body armor ruling.”
My earlier coverage of the ruling appears here and here.
Is Are successful on appeal? No he isn’t, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled in a decision issued today.
Second Circuit affirms rejection of FOIA lawsuit brought by attorneys for Guantanamo detainees seeking records showing whether the federal government has intercepted those attorneys’ communications relating to the representation of their detainee clients: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in this Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by clicking here.
“[W]hatever the individual right to keep and bear arms might entail, it does not authorize an unlicensed individual to possess unregistered machine guns for personal use.” So holds a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a decision issued today.
“Prop. 8 backers say TV coverage of trial unwise”: In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “Sponsors of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, which faces a federal court trial in San Francisco next month, have told the trial judge that his suggestion to televise the proceedings is both unwise and illegal.”
“US appeals court nixes Vatican Bank Holocaust suit”: The Associated Press has this report on a non-precedential ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.
On the agenda: This morning I’ll be wrapping up the Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees due today in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in the case that caused me to travel to Scranton, Pennsylvania back on May 1, 2009.
May 1st was also the day after news broke late the night before that Justice David H. Souter was planning to retire from the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Consumer Review Website Wins 230 Dismissal in Fourth Circuit–Nemet Chevrolet v. ConsumerAffairs.com”: At his “Technology & Marketing Law Blog,” law professor Eric Goldman has this post about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday.
“Federal court restricts Taser use by police; Ninth Circuit ruling — allowing an officer to be held liable for injuries a man suffered after being Tasered — sets a precedent that may force agencies to revisit their policies”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
Today’s edition of The Sacramento Bee reports that “Sacramento Sheriff McGinness defends Taser use after ruling.” And yesterday’s newspaper contained an article headlined “Federal appellate court limits cops’ use of Tasers.”
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday that “Taser ruling sets standards for police, claims.”
The San Jose Mercury News reports that “San Jose use of Tasers faces new scrutiny after federal court ruling.”
The Contra Costa Times reports that “Federal appeals court curbs stun gun use by police.”
The Denver Post reports that “Court’s limits on Taser use could affect police use of less-than-lethal device.”
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that “Court Denies Qualified Immunity to Officer Sued Over Taser Use.”
And law.com reports that “9th Circuit Says Police Officer Can Be Sued for Tasing.”
You can access Monday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link. The three-judge panel that issued the decision consisted of Circuit Judges Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt and Kim McLane Wardlaw.
