“Google to Face Suit Over AutoLink Patents, Court Says”: Bloomberg News provides a report that begins, “Google Inc., owner of the most-used Internet search engine, must face a Wisconsin company’s lawsuit over a toolbar feature that generates Web links from computer-search data, a federal appeals court decided.”

You can access yesterday’s non-precedential ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit at this link.

“State Without Pity”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “It is a shameful distinction, but Texas is the undisputed capital of capital punishment.”

“U.S. Prevails in Tax-Shelter Battle; ‘Son of Boss’ Court Ruling Could Be Used To Pressure Other Taxpayers to Settle”: This article appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

And The New York Times reports today that “Judge Hands I.R.S. Victory in Tax Shelter.”

“TaxProf Blog” reports on and links to last Friday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

“Convicted Felon Tests Second Amendment”: Joseph Goldstein has this article today in The New York Sun.

“Mom Serving 19 Years in Crack Case May Get Break”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“The Score was Justice 7, Law 2”: The latest installment of James J. Kilpatrick’s syndicated column begins, “When the dust settled over the Supreme Court’s most recent opinion day, the box score in Gall v. United States read 7-2 for Brian Gall. Put another way, the court cast seven votes for justice, two votes for law. You decide.”

Available online from law.com: Shannon P. Duffy reports that “Splenda Gets Partial Win in Ruling by 3rd Circuit.” My earlier coverage of Monday’s Third Circuit ruling appears at this link.

And an article headlined “Libeled Judge Faces Reprimand” begins, “The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct has scheduled a Jan. 8 hearing about its recommendation to publicly reprimand state court Judge Ernest B. Murphy for improper letters to Boston Herald publisher Patrick J. Purcell concerning Murphy’s libel lawsuit against the newspaper.”

“Number of Supreme Justices Increase to 14”: The Korea Times provides this report.

“Historian James MacGregor Burns tackles Supreme Court”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Gun Seized After Katrina? NRA Wants You.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The National Rifle Association has hired private investigators to find hundreds of people whose firearms were seized by city police in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, according to court papers filed this week. The NRA is trying to locate gun owners for a federal lawsuit that the lobbying group filed against Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley over the city’s seizure of firearms after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.”

Does a federal district court abuse its discretion if it rejects a criminal plea agreement on the basis of evidence that has not been disclosed to the defendant? A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit narrowly avoids having to decide the answer to that difficult question in this decision issued today. The prosecution arose after an Assistant U.S. Attorney received a threatening letter referring to a case on which she was working.

“Dress code suit costs couple $40,931.50; Anderson plaintiffs’ predicament illustrates the risks of being your own lawyer”: Monday’s edition of The Indianapolis Star contained an article that begins, “Laura and Scott Bell took on their school district’s new dress code, but their lawsuit was booted from court after they missed critical deadlines and pressed claims that a judge deemed frivolous. Four months later, the judge has ordered them to pay up for the trouble. The Bells now are on the hook for $40,931.50, the amount Anderson Community Schools said its law firm charged for fending off the couple’s lawsuit in July and August. The couple represented themselves in court. U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder’s decision underlines the risk of wading into legal waters without a lawyer. The danger is higher in litigation, where paying the winning side’s attorney fees is common.”

“The Indiana Law Blog” links to the federal district court’s attorneys’ fee ruling at the conclusion of this post from Monday.

“IRS Issues 70-Page Memo Debunking Tax Protester Arguments”: On Sunday, “TaxProf Blog” had this post linking to a 70-page memorandum titled “The Truth about Frivolous Tax Arguments” that the Internal Revenue Service issued last Friday.

Just when you think that matters can’t get any worse for tax protesters, they actually don’t get any worse for once. Today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision granting a new trial on criminal charges against Lawrence Cohen, whom the opinion describes as an “acolyte” of “well-known recidivist tax protestor Irwin Schiff.” The basis for the ruling is that the district court wrongly excluded the expert testimony of Cohen’s psychiatrist, who would have offered evidence relevant to Cohen’s mental state.

Today’s Ninth Circuit ruling also vacates fifteen criminal contempt convictions that the federal district judge summarily imposed on Schiff based on Schiff’s unruly courtroom behavior. Unfortunately for Schiff, the criminal contempt convictions were set aside due to a procedural flaw that the Ninth Circuit is allowing the district court to cure on remand.

Majority on 15-judge Ninth Circuit en banc panel corrects what it describes as that court’s earlier misconstruction of the Schlup v. Delo “actual innocence” “gateway”: Nine judges join in the lead opinion, four other judges join in an opinion concurring in the result, and two judges dissent. You can access the four opinions that today’s en banc ruling has generated by clicking here.

You can access the original three-judge Ninth Circuit panel’s ruling, which produced the grant of rehearing en banc, by clicking here. And the briefs that caused the Ninth Circuit to take the case en banc can be accessed at this link.

“Investigating the Destroyed CIA Videotapes”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on Monday’s broadcast of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation.”

“Liability waivers at winter resorts have legal teeth”: Geoffrey Fattah has this article today in The Deseret Morning News.

“State court puts limits on health insurers’ policy cancellations”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

My earlier coverage of Monday’s ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, appears at this link.

“Adjusted Penalties for Crack May Aid Ex-Ballplayer’s Case”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “Willie Mays Aikens is a part of baseball lore. As a member of the 1980 Kansas City Royals, he became the only man to hit more than one home run in two games of the same World Series. But 27 years after his feat, Aikens languishes in a federal prison in Jessup, Ga., brought low by cocaine addiction and a federal law that mandated long prison sentences for crack cocaine offenses. From a face on a baseball card, Aikens is now a poster child for what some jurists and civil rights activists say is the absurdity of the difference between the way federal law treats people convicted of crack cocaine offenses and those found guilty of crimes involving powder cocaine.”

You can access his Major League Baseball statistics via Baseball-Reference.com. And in the June 7, 2007 issue of The Los Angeles Times, Margaret Colgate Love had a related op-ed headlined “Begging Bush’s pardon.”

“Stephen Radich, Owner of Controversial Art Gallery, Is Dead at 85”: The New York Times today contains an obituary that begins, “Stephen Radich, a New York art gallery owner who became embroiled in a famous legal case involving flag desecration in the late 1960s, died on Dec. 18. He was 85, and lived in New York.”

According to the obituary, “After losing in New York, Mr. Radich appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which, in 1971, voted on the case 4 to 4, with Justice William O. Douglas not voting. Then the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a tie vote did not represent an actual adjudication, thereby allowing for yet another appeal. Finally, in 1974, a federal judge overturned the conviction.”

“The Work Remaining”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “It has been nearly a year since the United States attorneys scandal broke, and much has changed.”

“Guitar-Strumming Attorney Sets Legal Parodies to Music”: This article appears today in The New York Sun.

“DOJ’s Free Pass for Tort Fraud”: Law Professor Lester Brickman has this op-ed today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Is the Nighttime the Wrong Time for Searching Houses?: The Supreme Court of Minnesota Reads the U.S. Constitution to Say Yes.” Sherry F. Colb has this essay online today at FindLaw.

“Justices strike a balance; Pals Ginsburg, Scalia ring in the new year, then duke it out in court”: Joan Biskupic will have this article Wednesday in USA Today.

“Club seeks US Supreme Court help in nude-dancing fight”: This article appeared yesterday in The News-Journal of Daytona Beach, Florida.

“Texas is Bucking Execution Trend”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

The Washington Post on Wednesday will contain an article headlined “Repeal of Md. Death Penalty Still Seems Out of Reach; Activists Encouraged by New Jersey, but Key Senate Panel Remains in the Way.”

And from Nebraska, The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Senator: Next year could be ‘best chance’ to repeal death penalty.”

“Court: Reporter Need Not Turn Over Notes.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “An appeals court on Monday struck down a ruling ordering a reporter to give prosecutors unpublished notes from an interview with a man who shot two police officers before killing himself.”

And The Free Press of Mankato, Minnesota reports that “Free Press wins Amboy shooting case; Appeals Court rules prosecutors didn’t meet standards.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Court of Appeals of Minnesota at this link.

“Partisan Fissures Over Voter ID; Justices to Hear Challenge to Law”: Robert Barnes has this front page article today in The Washington Post.

“Court curbs insurers’ ability to rescind medical policies; A ruling restricts the ability of California health plans to cancel coverage after patients run up medical bills”: The Los Angeles Times today contains an article that begins, “California health insurers have a duty to check the accuracy of applications for coverage before issuing policies — and should not wait until patients run up big medical bills, a state appeals court ruled Monday. The court also said insurers could not cancel a medical policy unless they showed that the policyholder willfully misrepresented his health or that the company had investigated the application before it issued coverage.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, at this link.

“Court allows free speech on private-property malls; Case about protest at Fashion Valley”: Greg Moran has this article today in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “California’s top court curbs malls seeking to limit boycotts.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Court upholds protest at mall; Justices split 4 to 3 in opposing rules based on the content of a union’s protected free speech.”

And The New York Times reports that “Court Ruling on Protests Curbs Malls in California.”

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

“State Supreme Court dismisses libel suit brought by a San Francisco rabbi”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle provides this news update.

And Bay City News reports that “Libel Lawsuit By SF’s Hebrew Academy Rejected.”

My earlier coverage of today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California appears at this link.

“Mall boycott leaflets are protected free speech, California high court rules”: Bay City News Service provides this report.

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Court: Malls can’t bar protesters from boycotting stores.”

My earlier coverage of today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California appears at this link.

Supreme Court of California holds that the “single-publication rule” for determining when the statute of limitations begins to run on a defamation claim arising from a publication with widespread distribution also applies to a defamation claim arising from a publication that is not widely distributed: You can access today’s ruling from California’s highest court at this link.

“Political leafleting at malls upheld”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle provides a news update that begins, “A deeply divided California Supreme Court today upheld the right of unions and political protesters to leaflet shoppers at malls and urge a boycott. The 4-3 decision was based on the court’s landmark 1979 ruling that allowed political leafleting at large shopping centers under the state constitutional right of free speech. The court said in that ruling that a shopping mall was the modern equivalent of a town square or community meeting place, where people come to exchange ideas as well as spend money. The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that the constitutional right of free speech applies only to restrictions imposed by the government and not by private property owners. But the 1979 ruling remains the law in California.”

And Central Valley Business Times reports that “Malls may not regulate content of free speech, says California Supreme Court.”

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

The case reached California’s highest court on certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

“This appeal requires us to decide when the trade dress on the packaging of store-brand products is so similar to that of directly competing national-brand products as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers.” So begins a 40-page ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today. The case involves claims that store-brand sucralose is being packaged in a way that looks too much like the packaging used by the brand Splenda.