“Feds plan to drop 43 counts in Wecht fraud case”: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today contains an article that begins, “Less than two weeks before jury selection is scheduled to begin, federal prosecutors late yesterday filed a motion to dismiss 43 of the criminal counts against former Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril H. Wecht. That motion came on the same day that defense attorneys filed a second petition with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the judge overseeing the case be removed.”

And The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports today that “Prosecutor cuts Wecht case in half.”

“Pa. court upholds church-state case; It said Phila. was within the law in condemning private land for a Catholic educational project”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an article that begins, “In Pennsylvania, it is now legal in some cases to condemn blighted private property and turn it over to a religious organization, the state Supreme Court ruled this week. The case, which blended the hot-button issues of eminent domain and separation of church and state, revolved around a North Philadelphia neighborhood that the city certified as blighted 36 years ago.”

Thursday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion.

“Court orders judge to reconsider ruling on deaf truck drivers”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s en banc Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Lacking lawyers, justice is denied; Attorneys often avoid medical malpractice suits because California limits ‘pain and suffering’ awards to $250,000”: Saturday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times will contain this article.

“Caps on personal-injury damages upheld by Ohio Supreme Court; Business group applauds ruling”: This article appears today in The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

The Toledo Blade reports today that “Limits on damages for pain are upheld by Ohio Supreme Court; Court affirms 2004 law.”

The Columbus Dispatch reports that “Cap on lawsuit damages upheld; Right to a jury trial does not rule out $350,000 limit.”

And The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that “Court upholds cap on damages; Max for pain and suffering is $350,000.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio appears at this link.

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Small Firm Business Attorney Tapped to Argue High Court Lethal-Injection Case; Choice of veteran Supreme Court advocate reflects trend by states.”

And in other news, “9th Circuit Switches Gears on UPS Drivers in Closely Watched Class Action; 15-judge panel comes up with a new ‘business necessity’ standard for employers faced with ADA litigation.” My earlier coverage of today’s en banc Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

Jurisprudence essays available online at Slate: Dahlia Lithwick has an essay entitled “Legal Fictions: The Bush administration’s dumbest legal arguments of the year.”

And Niko Karvounis has an essay entitled “Capital Opportunity: Democrats could safely champion death-penalty reform–why aren’t they?”

“Hicks released from Yatala – but it’s freedom at a price”: The Advertiser of Adelaide, Australia provides a news update that begins, “Confessed terrorism supporter David Hicks has been released from an Adelaide jail – but has left dealing with the media to his father and lawyer. The 32-year-old walked out of the Yatala prison in Adelaide’s north at 8.17am. Hicks has been in custody since being captured among Taliban forces in Afghanistan, in December 2001.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Australian Guantanamo Convict Released.”

It’s not every day that you see an opinion involving a conviction for possession of child pornography where the images in question were created by the “victim” at the victim’s suggestion and then sold by the victim to the defendant in a transaction the victim proposed: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued this ruling today. These facts, among others, explain why the appellate court in this decision affirms a sentence that is substantially below the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range.

“Even litigation spawning multiple Roman numeral suffixes must come to an end.” If today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Doe v. Chao marks the end of that case, the litigation will have concluded at Doe VII.

Second Circuit rejects challenges to the use of an anonymous jury and the removal for cause of certain jurors opposed to the death penalty based only on responses to a written questionnaire in a case where the death-qualified jury ended up imposing a life sentence: You can access today’s lengthy ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“$156M Terrorism Damage Award Thrown Out”: The Associated Press provides this report.

And the Anti-Defamation League has issued a press release entitled “ADL Disappointed With Overturn of Landmark Anti-Terrorism Judgment.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Seventh Circuit ruling appears at this link.

You can access via this link the briefs filed on appeal. The case was orally argued a little over two years ago, and you can download the oral argument audio in three parts via this link.

Fifteen-judge en banc Ninth Circuit panel sets aside injunction that would have required United Parcel Service to hire hearing-impaired drivers to operate local delivery vans: You can access today’s en banc ruling at this link.

In October 2006, a unanimous three-judge Ninth Circuit panel had affirmed the injunction, holding that the company’s refusal to hire the hearing-impaired to make local deliveries violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. In covering that ruling, Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle had an article headlined “Deaf drivers due a chance at UPS jobs, court says; Some may be as safe as rivals with normal hearing, ruling holds.”

Partially divided three-judge Seventh Circuit panel sets aside $156 million judgment awarded to parents of teenager randomly shot to death in Israel by gunmen believed to be acting on behalf of the terrorist organization Hamas: You can access today’s 102-page ruling at this link.

The majority has ruled that the federal district court erred in holding that the defendants were liable on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The end result is that the case is remanded for further proceedings. Before summarizing its holdings, the majority opinion concludes:

Belief, assumption, and speculation are no substitutes for evidence in a court of law. However the plaintiffs might establish a line of proof connecting the defendants with the murder of David Boim, the law demands that they demonstrate such a nexus before any defendant may be held liable for David’s death. We must resist the temptation to gloss over error, admit spurious evidence, and assume facts not adequately proved simply to side with the face of innocence and against the face of terrorism. Our endeavor to adhere to the dictates of law that this great nation has embodied since its founding must persevere, no matter how great our desire to hold someone accountable for the unspeakably evil acts that ended David Boim’s life and created a lifetime of grief not only for the Boims but also for every other family scarred by terrorism.

Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood joined. In his opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans explains that he would have affirmed the district court’s judgment except as to one defedant.

Update: Coincidentally, earlier this month the publication Washington Jewish Week published an article headlined “Lewin and Lewin make their mark.” According to the article, “The Lewins currently represent the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and are working on a number of other Jewish-related cases, such as the Boim case, in which, on behalf of a victim of a Hamas terrorist attack in Israel, they successfully sued the Holy Land Foundation and two other U.S. charities for providing funding to the terrorist organization. They are waiting for the results of an appeal, but the legal theory they developed has been adopted by a number of other terror victims since.”

“Galle on ‘The Tax Law Made Me Crazy’ Defense Approved by the 9th Circuit in Cohen“: This post appears today at “TaxProf Blog.”

My earlier coverage of Wednesday’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

Part man, part beast: In case you are concerned that today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit involving xenotransplantation — which the opinion describes as “a relatively new procedure whereby animal organs or tissues are transplanted to the human body” — would be too fascinating to pass-up, do not despair.

In fact, all that the decision addresses is whether the organization known as Campaign for Responsible Transplantation (whose web site features this lovely image) is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees from the Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Nevertheless, please do keep xenotransplantation in mind the next time you sit down to play Scrabble.

You can access many of the trial court filings in the case via this link.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania grants review to decide “[w]hether accessing and viewing child pornography over the internet constitutes ‘control’ of such pornography under 18 Pa.C.S. sec. 6312(d)“: You can access Monday’s order of Pennsylvania’s highest court at this link.

The case in which review was granted is captioned Commonwealth v. Diodoro. In November 2006, I had this post reporting on the decision of a unanimous three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania setting aside the defendant’s conviction. In December 2006, I criticized that decision in an installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column headlined “Just Looking: Should Internet Ignorance Be a Defense to Child Porn Charges?” Thereafter, the Pa. Superior Court granted reargument en banc. Next, in August 2007, a nine-judge en banc panel of the Pa. Superior Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction by means of a 7-2 ruling that you can access here. And now the Pa. Supreme Court has agreed to have the final word on the matter.

“Guantanamo Terror Convict to Be Set Free”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Convicted terror supporter David Hicks was due to walk free Saturday after more than six years of captivity in Guantanamo Bay and Australia, but will face strict controls on his movements after a court found he was still a security risk.”

“Entertainer and Fighter Is Clemens’s Lead Lawyer”: This profile of attorney Rusty Hardin appears today in The New York Times. The article notes that Hardin also represents the woman who is accusing U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent of sexual assault.

“Protection and Pay for Federal Judges”: The New York Times contains this editorial today.

“Affirmative action may be on ballots; Campaign in five states seeks end of preferences”: This front page article appears today in USA Today.

“S-R loses court battle over school records”: The Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington provides a news update that begins, “The Washington Supreme Court sided Thursday with Spokane Public Schools in a six-year legal battle with The Spokesman-Review over access to witness accounts of the events that led to the death of a third grader on a school field trip in 2001. The 5-4 ruling upholds the school district’s decision to withhold public documents when it assumed a wrongful death lawsuit was likely.”

And The Associated Press reports that “High court shields attorney-client records; State’s justices rule out releasing documents regarding child’s death.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro has an article headlined “A Historic Find Behind a Supreme Court Filing Cabinet; A copy of the Declaration of Independence sat forgotten at the high court; Now it’s cleaned up and on display.”

In other news, “Court Rejects Billionaire’s Bid to Obtain Milberg Weiss Work Product; CA shareholder Wyly had sought internal documents to support claim that settlement did not adequately account for company fraud.”

And a newsbrief reports that “Airline Industry to Appeal ‘Passenger Bill of Rights’ Ruling.” My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Iowa appeals videotape evidence case to U.S. Supreme Court”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Iowa’s attorney general has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review an Iowa Supreme Court ruling prohibiting the use of videotaped testimony in a child sexual abuse case against a man whose brother killed the child.”

And Radio Iowa News reports that “Iowa Attorney General asks for U.S. Supreme Court review of Bentley ruling.”

“SF appeals to court to allow health coverage plan to proceed”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle provides a news update that begins, “San Francisco asked a federal appeals court this morning to let the city extend health coverage to all uninsured adult residents next week, despite a federal judge’s ruling that struck down a key provision requiring employers to pay part of the cost.”

“Plaintiffs’ lawyers blast Exxon brief to high court”: This article appeared last week in The Kodiak Daily Mirror.

Credit reporting service that failed to correct the credit report of a woman who was the victim of identity theft remains liable to pay six-figure judgment on woman’s claims for economic loss and emotional distress: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued this ruling today. Defendant Equifax did succeed in setting aside an attorneys’ fee award of $181,083 in the woman’s favor, although the district court will be able to reconsider what amount of attorneys’ fees to award on remand. And if the woman is dissatisfied with the Fourth Circuit’s remittitur of the jury’s $245,000 mental anguish award to $150,000, she has the ability to elect a new trial.

“In a first for any federal court, my colleagues hold that a foreign company that has no United States employees, locations, or business activities must produce a designee to testify at a deposition in the Eastern District of Virginia so long as it has applied for trademark registration with a government office located there.” So begins a dissent that Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III issued today from a ruling of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The case arises from a Portuguese company’s effort to obtain a United States trademark registration of the mark VIRGIN GORDA. Opposing the registration of that mark is Virgin Enterprises Ltd., a conglomerate that operates businesses such as Virgin Atlantic Airways, Virgin Records, Virgin Mobile, Virgin Wines, and Virgin Digital.

“Ohio Supreme Court upholds law limiting punitive damages”: The Columbus Dispatch provides a news update that begins, “A Republican-sponsored law to limit the amount of punitive damages people can collect for defective products or malpractice does not violate the Ohio Constitution, the state Supreme Court ruled today. In a 5-2 decision, the court said lawmakers didn’t overstep their bounds when they capped non-economic damages at $350,000 per person and $500,000 per incident in 2005.”

The Toledo Blade provides a news update headlined “Ohio Supreme Court upholds law that puts cap on personal injury damages.”

The Cleveland Plain Dealer provides a news update headlined “Ohio personal injury caps upheld.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer provides a news update headlined “Lawsuit limits upheld.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Damages Law.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio at this link. And the court’s Public Information Office issued a news release headlined “Court Upholds Two Tort-Reform Statutes.”

“KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, dissenting for the most part:” So begins Chief Judge Alex Kozinski‘s opinion “dissenting for the most part” from a ruling that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

A search of Westlaw’s CTA database discloses that today is not the first time Kozinski has dissented “for the most part.” He also did it once in 1992 and once earlier this year. Thus far, the characterization hasn’t caught on with any other federal appellate judges, as there are no other recorded use of the “dissenting for the most part” language in any other federal appellate court rulings available in that database.

“Nine-year-old Nathan Walters died after ingesting part of a peanut butter cookie, which was served to him in a school lunch on a school field trip.” So begins the majority opinion in today’s 5-4 ruling of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington in Soter v. Cowles Publishing Co. Today’s decision also includes a concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion.

At issue on appeal is whether the school district properly declined to release 75 documents relating to the child’s food allergy-related death after The Spokesman-Review newspaper sought access to the documents under Washington State’s Public Records Act. The majority holds that the documents were properly withheld from the newspaper. The dissenting opinion, in which four justices have joined, disagrees, stating: “The majority essentially creates a public nondisclosure act, turning the act inside out so that documents are withheld from the public unless the public can demonstrate that no remotely connected litigation exists, past, present, or future.”

“A Court in Need: The Senate should act on nominations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

“KU graduate to clerk for Supreme Court”: The Topeka Capital-Journal today contains an article that begins, “A 2003 University of Kansas graduate who earned a law degree this spring at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., is the second Kansan recently selected for a U.S. Supreme Court clerkship in the 2008 term. Jameson Reece Jones, of Wichita, who earned degrees in American studies and civil engineering at KU, will clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia during the 2008-09 term. Jones currently is a clerk for Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court, in Columbus, Ohio.”

And the University of Kansas yesterday issued a press release entitled “2003 KU graduate selected to clerk for U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Strip clubs fighting $5 fee focus on tax argument, not First Amendment; Fee goes into effect Tuesday”: This article appears today in The Austin American-Statesman.

“A Colony With a Conscience”: Today in The New York Times, Kenneth T. Jackson has this op-ed about the Flushing Remonstrance.