“Nerd” no more: The Supreme Court of the United States is no longer calling Carter G. Phillips counsel for “petitionerd” in the eBay case. My original post on this matter is here. And the corrected Hearing List can be accessed here.
The change comes after at least one of the lawyers arguing tomorrow’s patent law case expressed disappointment that the Court wasn’t also calling him a nerd. Either he’s too cool, or it’s too difficult to make the error with respect to counsel representing a party other than the petitioner[d].
Mindful that courts sometimes see fit to eliminate errors noted at “How Appealing,” the original “petitionerd” Hearing List has been preserved for posterity (or at least until this blog relocates one month from today to its new law.com address) at this link. No word yet on whether the uncorrected Hearing List was distributed to visitors at the Court today and, if so, how much of a premium the document will fetch at auction on the web site operated by petitionerd.
Tonight’s DVD selection: Completed watching the film “Paper Clips.” And if Netflix is to be believed, tomorrow’s mail should contain “Capote.”
First I was born, and then eight days later…. Ian Best, who is blogging for law school credit at “3L Epiphany,” attended my talk last Monday afternoon at the Moritz College of Law of The Ohio State University and took especially careful notes. The result is a post at his blog titled “How Appealing: The Life of Howard Bashman.”
“$50 million award upheld for widow of California smoker”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle provides this news update.
In Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times: Linda Greenhouse will have an article headlined “Justices Weigh In on Use of Tapes and Transcripts.”
And in other news, “Banker Granted Retrial in a Case From 90’s Boom.”
“Controversy over US patent laws goes before the Supreme Court”: Patti Waldmeir has this article in Tuesday’s issue of Financial Times.
Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Quattrone Conviction Reversed by 2nd Circuit.”
Justin Scheck reports that “9th Circuit Slams DOJ Over Detention.”
And in other news, “Witness Flap Casts Doubt on Call for Death in Moussaoui Case.”
“FBI Agent Slams Bosses at Moussaoui Trial”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“Law Blog Special: A Night Out With Judge Alex Kozinski.” Peter Lattman has this post at the WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”
Sadly, the post describes a meeting at a trendy hotel bar without providing any details of what the discussants were imbibing, although we do learn from the post what Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski‘s new motor vehicle is imbibing. I also must discount the post’s suggestion that Judge Kozinski would imply that he’d be less interested in being the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit if that entailed being Chief of the post-split Ninth Circuit, because while that conceivably might be something a chief judge-in-waiting might think, it’s not something that a chief judge-in-waiting would say.
Finally on the subject of a potential Ninth Circuit split, Idaho Republican Congressman Mike Simpson had these remarks last Wednesday in the Congressional Record.
“Abortion issue in Alaska gets new fuel; South Dakota law could change Roe, might renew the debate in Alaska”: The Anchorage Daily News contains this article today.
“Same-sex marriage ruling expected in Washington; The state’s high court should rule any day on the Defense of Marriage Act”: This article appears today in The Oregonian.
“Supreme Court rules against City of Akron records’ destruction”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The city of Akron could be forced to pay $860,000 for destroying records that documented how much time off two secretaries earned, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Monday.”
You can access today’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio, answering certified questions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, at this link.
Fourth Circuit declines to revive lawsuit against Maryland State Police and 24 of its officers alleging that defendants racially profiled minority motorists on Interstate 95 in Maryland: You can access today’s decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.
“Appeals Court Overturns Conviction of Top Banker”: The New York Times provides this news update.
“Brown Joins in Enforcing Clean Air Act; Appellate Judge’s Vote Doesn’t Sway Her Critics”: Today in The Daily Journal of California, Dennis Pfaff has an article (free access) that begins, “Federal appeals court Judge Janice Rogers Brown voted with her colleagues late last week to strongly reject Bush administration attempts to loosen air pollution regulations.”
“Robe Warriors: If you think judges should be above petty politics, try not to watch them campaign this year.” The February 2006 issue of Governing Magazine contained this article. Thanks to “North Dakota Supreme Court News” for the pointer.
“Granholm to OK bill on abortion; Doctors would have to give women the option of viewing an ultrasound before having the procedure”: This article appears today in The Detroit News.
And The Detroit Free Press reports today that “Granholm agrees to abortion regulation; Bill to add ultrasounds to the rules.”
“In Praise Of Judicial Modesty”: Stuart Taylor Jr. has this essay in today’s issue of National Journal.
“Flanders nominated for federal court; Sen. Lincoln Chafee puts the former state Supreme Court justice’s name forward to replace Bruce Selya on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals”: Saturday’s edition of The Providence Journal contained an article that begins, “Robert G. Flanders, a former Rhode Island Supreme Court justice, respected Providence trial lawyer and onetime Brown University football star, was nominated yesterday by Sen. Lincoln Chafee to a seat on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the nation’s most prestigious courts. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Flanders, 56, of East Greenwich, would replace Judge Bruce Selya, who is retiring to what federal judges refer to as ‘senior,’ or part-time, status.”
No word of the nomination appears yet at the White House’s web site.
Motor vehicle accidents leading to damages claims against the United States: In a case arising from a tragic snowmobiling accident, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today issued an order certifying to the Supreme Court of Montana, among other questions, the question “Does the gross negligence standard of care in the snowmobile liability statute, Mont. Code Ann. § 23-2-653 (1996), violate the Montana equal protection clause.” The United States Forest Service is the appellant, having suffered entry of a multi-million-dollar judgment against it in the federal district court.
By contrast, the United States emerged victorious in the district court and, now, on appeal in an automobile accident case that the Seventh Circuit decided today. But, before ruling in favor of the United States on the merits, Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel, chides counsel for the federal government for opposing appellate jurisdiction based on an argument that “no statute, no rule, and no decision in the history of the United States” has recognized as valid.
“Court Overturns Quattrone Conviction”: The Associated Press provides this report on today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The conviction has been vacated, and the case remanded for a retrial, due to erroneous jury instructions. The Second Circuit has also ordered that the case be handled on remand by a different district judge for reasons explained at the end of today’s opinion.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deprives this past Saturday’s broadcast of C-SPAN‘s “America & the Courts” of any drama: The March 18, 2006 broadcast consisted of video (RealPlayer required) of the Ninth Circuit’s oral argument, held on March 7, 2006, in Nadarajah v. Gonzales. C-SPAN’s broadcast fails to note, however, that the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in the case on Friday, March 17, 2006. My earlier coverage of that ruling is here.
Correction: At the conclusion of the broadcast, C-SPAN does in fact note the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
“Contrary to popular belief, the Fourth Amendment does not require that a search be based on probable cause to believe that the search will yield contraband or evidence of crime. The amendment requires that warrants be based on probable cause, but forbids only unreasonable searches.” So writes Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner today, in an opinion issued on behalf of a majority on a three-judge panel of that court.
“Chief Justice says judges never even discussed law with legislator; Sen. Dean Johnson received a unanimous vote of confidence from Senate DFLers and says he is moving on”: The Minneapolis Star Tribune provides this news update.
And The St. Paul Pioneer Press provides a news update headlined “Senate DFLers back majority leader after difficult week.”
“Justices Debate Evidence From 911 Calls”: The AP provides this report.
The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Israel Spy’s Supreme Court Appeal Fails“; “Justices Reject N.J. Death Sentence Appeal“; and “High Court Rejects Ex-Ark. Gov.’s Appeal.”
Dueling op-eds in today’s edition of The Richmond Times-Dispatch: Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky has an op-ed entitled “Rumsfeld v. FAIR: Ruling Was a Loss for Free Speech, Association.”
And Joseph Zengerle has an op-ed entitled “Friend-of-the-Court: Recruiters Will Be Welcomed Here.”
One month from today: On April 20, 2006, the “How Appealing” blog will be moving to a new online address because as of that date American Lawyer Media’s law.com will replace Legal Affairs magazine as this blog’s online host.
Legal Affairs has provided a wonderful online home for this blog over the past twenty-three months, and I am confident that this blog will continue to thrive at its new location following the upcoming move.
Although the online address for “How Appealing” will be changing, what will not be changing is my coverage of court rulings and law-related news that you’ve come to expect from this blog. Thanks for reading, and as the move approaches I’ll be sure to provide plenty of notice of the address to which this blog will be moving on April 20, 2006.
“The battle to ban birth control: Using bogus health facts to scare women about the ‘dangers’ of contraception, a fledgling movement fights for a culture in which sex = procreation.” Priya Jain has this essay online today at Salon.com.
The Associated Press is reporting: Gina Holland reports that “Supreme Court Won’t Review Tobacco Award” and “Justices Pass on Internet Obscenity Case.”
And in other news, “FBI Agent Defends Self in Moussaoui Case.”
Does a rifle that never was a machinegun and that could be converted to shoot automatically in four to six hours by an expert gunsmith using readily available equipment qualify under federal law as a firearm that could “be readily restored to shoot” automatically? Today a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit answers that question in the affirmative in a decision that you can access here.
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List: You can access today’s Order List at this link. The Court called for the views of the Solicitor General in one case but granted review in no cases.
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “No new grants.”
“11th Circuit’s Abuzz With Sex Toy Litigation”: The new installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed here.
In today’s issue of The Harvard Crimson: The newspaper contains an editorial entitled “A Trial Tainted: We are disappointed by the government’s missteps in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.”
And Curtis M. Brown has an op-ed entitled “Whitewashing Torture.”
“Court upholds recruiting”: The Yale Daily News contains this article today.
