Available online from law.com: An article headlined “Concealed Sums Part of Charges Against Attorney Yagman; Bankruptcy allegedly did not disclose $1.4M” notes that “In recent years, Yagman has sought to bring disciplinary action against U.S. District Judge Manuel Real of the Central District of California in a case closely watched by judges nationwide.”
And the brand new installment of my “On Appeal” column is headlined “Should the 9th Circuit Be Split Even if Its Judges Disapprove?”
“Redaction of Confidential Information in Electronic Documents: How to safely remove sensitive information from Microsoft Word documents and PDF Documents Using Adobe Acrobat.” Following-up on my recent post on this subject, I have recently come across this document from Adobe Systems Incorporated, the manufacturer of the leading PDF publishing software.
Good time was had by all: This decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued today rejects a federal prisoner’s challenge to the federal Bureau of Prisons’ method of applying good time credits toward time served. In his concurring opinion, Circuit Judge Terrence L. O’Brien writes that “A good lawyer can formulate an argument that makes a hash of almost any statutory, regulatory or contractual language.”
“Same-sex marriage fails at N.Y. court; Ruling: State not obligated to sanction it”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.
And The New York Times reports today that “Georgia Court Upholds a Referendum Banning Same-Sex Marriage.”
“Stay of Soledad cross removal extended; Justice Kennedy indicates Supreme Court may want to review case”: The San Diego Union-Tribune provides this news update.
The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court Stay Upheld in Cross Case.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Kennedy delays cross removal.”
You can access today’s Opinion in Chambers by Circuit Justice Anthony M. Kennedy both here and here.
“Liability ruling has governments out on a financial limb; Taxpayers will be on the hook as the cap on awards is effectively ended”: This article appears today in The Oregonian reporting on a ruling that the Oregon Court of Appeals issued on Wednesday.
“The Long Dark Night of Sashalessness Is Over”: Eugene Volokh has this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“N.Y. ruling a setback for gay unions; On eve of California cases, lawyers say judges unlikely to agree ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional”: Josh Richman has this article today in The Oakland Tribune. According to the article, “The California Court of Appeal in San Francisco will hear arguments Monday in six consolidated cases challenging the constitutionality of California’s same-sex marriage ban.”
“When Do Judges Get to Use Judgement in Interpreting a Statute?” Bruce Boyden has this interesting post today at “Concurring Opinions.”
“Justice Alito finds his field of dreams”: Bill Mears has this report online at CNN.com.
“The Fragile Kennedy Court”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “The Supreme Court has nominally been the Roberts Court since last fall, when John Roberts arrived as chief justice. But as a practical matter, the recently completed term marked the start of the Kennedy Court.”
“Is Don’tDateHimGirl.com Fair To Men? One Who Sued, Claiming Defamation, Takes On Site’s Creator.” This segment (text with link to video) appeared on yesterday’s broadcast of the CBS News program “The Early Show.”
Meanwhile, I have obtained a PDF copy of the complaint initiating suit against the web site, and it can be accessed online at this link.
“Process Makes Perfect: John Roberts’ marked, and positive, influence on the Supreme Court.” Law Professor Rodger Citron has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
Sixth Circuit rejects constitutional challenge to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.
“Rat Race: Insider Advice on Landing Judicial Clerkships.” Senior Third Circuit Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert and his two current law clerks will have this article in the forthcoming issue of the Penn State Law Review.
The article’s first paragraph concludes, “We would like to guide the judicial clerkship applicant through the application process by discussing how our chambers conducts the interview and selection process. Specifically, we hope to dispel rumors of what goes on behind the curtain, and ultimately shed some light on how a clerkship applicant could improve his or her chances of receiving an offer.”
“Persuaded of the legal correctness of the government’s position, although not caught up in the spirit of it, the court modified the sentence to one of incarceration, or something meant to resemble it. The court sentenced Crisp to five hours in custody of the Marshals. Crisp had reason to be grateful. The government did not. This is its appeal. We reverse.” Circuit Judge Ed Carnes issued this opinion today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
“Douglas R. Loving, Texas inmate # 611599, brought this action asserting that he was entitled to the legal minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act for work he performed as a ‘drying machine operator’ in the prison laundry.” So begins a per curiam opinion that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.
Forthcoming appellate essays: The next installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column for law.com will address the merits of the argument that the Ninth Circuit should not be split in two so long as a majority of judges serving on that court is opposed to the idea.
And Monday’s installment of my monthly “Upon Further Review” column for The Legal Intelligencer consists of my yearly review of how the Third Circuit fared in the just-concluded Term before the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the Third Circuit suffered reversals in all three cases that went before the Supreme Court on direct review, the Third Circuit performed much better when one considers the ten other cases that resolved conflicts involving the Third Circuit. In those other ten cases, the Supreme Court sided with the Third Circuit’s position seven times. Thus, overall, the Third Circuit’s record of success before the Supreme Court this past Term was 7-6. All the details will be in Monday’s Legal Intelligencer column, which I’ll make freely available online next Wednesday.
“Our holding today only prevents the plaintiffs from recovering the $2.00 annual fee they paid since 1990 [for the use of a removable handicapped parking placards], because as to the category of claims involving rational discrimination based on disability, Title II of the ADA is not an appropriate exercise of Congress’s power under §5 of the fourteenth amendment.” In light of plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration based on the U.S. Supreme Court‘s recent ruling in United States v. Georgia, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued this decision today.
“Kyl defends bogus brief”: The East Valley (Ariz.) Tribune today contains an article that begins, “Sen. Jon Kyl said Thursday he did not intend to deceive the U.S. Supreme Court by submitting a fabricated discussion into the Congressional Record.”
“Dole, Salon.com trade slaps over Boyle”: This article appears today in The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina.
“Appellants, current and former Navy chaplains of ‘non-liturgical Protestant’ faiths and their endorsing agency, brought suit alleging the Navy has unconstitutionally established and maintained a religious quota system for the promotion, assignment, and retention of Navy chaplains that disadvantages chaplains of non-liturgical Protestant faiths.” So begins an opinion that Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
“Big Award on Tobacco Is Rejected by Court”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Fla. High Court Won’t Reinstate Tobacco Verdict; In a victory for cigarette makers, the landmark $145-billion class-action award remains lifted.”
The Miami Herald reports that “Smokers’ damages, class suit snuffed; The Florida Supreme Court erased a decade of tobacco legal history with a ruling that ended a smokers’ class-action case against major cigarette manufacturers.”
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports that “Tobacco verdict tossed; Florida high court rules $145 billion too high.”
And The Palm Beach Post reports that “$145 billion tobacco suit reversed.”
My earlier coverage appears at this link.
“The Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Broader Protection for Employees Who Suffer Retaliation When They Complain About Discrimination”: Joanna Grossman and Deborah Brake have this essay online today at FindLaw.