“Court hands defeat to advocates of Ill. abortion notification law”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal judge refused to allow enforcement of an ill-fated state law requiring teenage girls to notify their parents before getting abortions, potentially ending any chance the decades-old measure will ever take effect.”
I have posted online at this link Thursday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Zbaraz v. Madigan.
“Court holds Navy to rules safeguarding marine mammals; Appellate panel backs a lower court decision but allows a 30-day reprieve from the toughest rules so sonar training can go forward”: The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Iraqi Court Tosses American’s Conviction”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides this report.
And on yesterday’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Iraqi Conviction Overturned, Munaf to Face High Court” (RealPlayer required).
On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the majority on a divided three-judge Tenth Circuit panel refuses to dismiss as untimely a criminal appeal filed one day too late where the federal government had failed to object to the appeal’s untimeliness: You can access yesterday’s Tenth Circuit ruling at this link. The federal government won the appeal on the merits, so it did not suffer any real prejudice in failing to object to the appeal’s untimeliness.
In a ruling issued in September 2006, the same three-judge Tenth Circuit panel had unanimously dismissed the appeal as untimely. The different outcome on remand resulted from the Supreme Court’s rulings in Bowles v. Russell, Eberhart v. United States, and Kontrick v. Ryan.
“Spam operator loses his appeal; Va.’s high court upholds 9-year prison term; case may go to Supreme Court”: This article appears today in The Richmond Times-Dispatch.
And The Washington Times reports today that “Virginia spam charges upheld.”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Virginia appears at this link.
“S.F. judge dissolves his Wikileaks injunction”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
Today in The Los Angeles Times, Henry Weinstein reports that “Injunction against website is lifted; Judge reverses earlier decision, saying he may have violated the free speech rights of watchdog Wikileaks.”
The New York Times reports that “Judge Reverses His Order Disabling Web Site.”
Declan McCullagh of c|net News.com has a report headlined “Judge: Wikileaks gets its domain name back.”
The Associated Press reports that “Judge Allows Wikileaks Site to Re-Open.”
And the organization Electronic Frontier Foundation yesterday issued a news release entitled “Judge Dissolves Wikileaks.org Injunction; First Amendment Rights of Internet Users Upheld in Today’s Hearing.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California at this link.
“Appeals court rejects sonar waiver for Navy”: Reuters provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has rejected White House efforts to exempt the U.S. Navy from laws intended to protect endangered whales and other marine mammals by curbing ”
Late yesterday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion and an order in this matter.
“Department of Pre-Crime: Why are citizens being locked up for ‘un-American’ thoughts?” Eric Umansky has this article online at Mother Jones.
“Embattled Lawyer’s TV Ads Spark Debate; Ruling due on whether Fieger’s pretrial ads are trying to taint jury pool; case draws interest from lawyers around the country”: law.com provides this report.
My earlier post on this subject, including a link to one of the controversial ads, can be accessed here.
“Why do big law firms undervalue blogs?” The blog “Drug and Device Law” has this post asking that question and considering some possible answers.
