“California Supreme Court appears likely to uphold gay marriage ban”: Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has this news update.
Maura Dolan and Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times have a news update headlined “California Supreme Court signals mixed response to Proposition 8; As both sides of the gay-marriage ban argue before the court, the justices sound hesitant to overturn the ban but also reluctant to invalidate the same-sex marriages already performed.”
The Sacramento Bee has a news update headlined “Justices hammer both sides in Prop. 8 hearing.”
The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined “Court hears Prop. 8 arguments.”
The New York Times has a news update headlined “California Court Weighing Gay Marriage Ban.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Calif justices hear arguments in gay marriage case.”
“No Legal Shield in Drug Labeling, Justices Rule”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times. A related article is headlined “Drug Ruling Puts Devices in Spotlight.” And an editorial is entitled “A Win for Injured Patients.”
Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Justices Rule Against Drug Company in Injury Case.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules patients can sue drug makers; The justices, acting in a Vermont case, reject the Bush administration’s contention that drug companies should be shielded from lawsuits if their products were approved by the FDA.”
Joan Biskupic and Julie Appleby of USA Today report that “Court ruling backs drug lawsuits; Woman lost arm because of injection.”
In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “High Court Eases Way to Liability Lawsuits.” A related article reports that “Ruling Ripples Beyond Drug Firms.” And an editorial is entitled “Pre-empting Drug Innovation: So much for the ‘pro-business’ Court.”
law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court’s Wyeth Ruling Deals a Blow to Pre-emption Defense; 6-3 decision highlights how pre-emption cases are not always decided along liberal-conservative lines.”
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Ruling says patients can sue drugmakers.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “High court upholds right to sue drugmakers.”
The Associated Press reports that “Victory bittersweet for drug liability case victim.”
Yesterday evening’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” contained a segment entitled “Supreme Court Allows Lawsuits against Pharmaceutical Companies to Move Forward” (transcript with links to audio and video) featuring Marcia Coyle.
And yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entiteld “Court Rules For Musician In Drug Case” (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg.
“Missing trial tapes spawn an impasse; Stenographer denies she has them”: Today in The Boston Globe, Jonathan Saltzman has an article that begins, “When they do their jobs right, court stenographers attract little attention. They tap quietly on a shorthand machine at more than 200 words a minute to make a record of testimony or repeat verbatim everything said in court into a tape recorder. But among the cast of characters, they seldom play a starring role. Jeanne Lentini, however, is getting a close-up, and not a flattering one. After working in the state courts under contract for eight years, she left Massachusetts in the spring of 2007 with tape recordings she made of 17 criminal and civil trials, court officials said. Despite demands to provide transcripts or return the tapes, which belong to the state, the officials said, she has sent back only seven recordings and some blank tapes. Transcripts are the lifeblood of the appeal process, so the missing tapes have stymied litigants in 10 criminal and civil cases, preventing them from challenging the verdicts.”
“Calif. Justices Seem Skeptical About School’s Responsibility for Lost Cadaver; Lawsuit against University of California Regents alleges that UC-Irvine lost track of a body donated under the ‘willed body program'”: law.com provides this report.
“Three Strikes and You’re Out? Critics Seek Juror-Dismissal Cap.” Today in The Wall Street Journal, Nathan Koppel has an article that begins, “In the interest of fair trials, attorneys can dismiss people from jury pools for dressing strangely, for being fat, even for just looking at them funny. What lawyers can’t do is dismiss potential jurors based on their race, gender or ethnicity. Yet, attorneys and academics say, it happens all the time. To root out discrimination in the jury room, critics have called for a radical solution: Get rid of peremptory strikes, which typically allow lawyers to dismiss a limited number of jurors, no questions asked.”
“Ninth Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins to Take Senior Status”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this news release yesterday.
Tomorrow — as noted here, here, and here — Judge Hawkins will be part of a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel hearing oral arguments at the James E. Rogers College of Law of the University of Arizona.
Separation of professional baseball and state: Is the construction of a professional baseball stadium for private profit an act that is “for the benefit of the state” as that phrase is understood in Washington State?
Today, the Supreme Court of Washington State ruled “yes” in a lawsuit involving an alleged construction defect at Safeco Field, the home of the Seattle Mariners. Today’s ruling consists of a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion.
“The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., in three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a statewide ballot initiative that was passed by a majority of California voters in November 2008”: So notes the web page of the California Channel, which will be offering a live webcast of today’s oral argument. The court’s web site also notes another online viewing option.
The San Francisco Chronicle today contains an article headlined “March in the Castro on eve of Prop. 8 hearing.”
The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Gay couples hold vigils urging justices to end Prop. 8; As opponents stage events across the state, backers prepare for today’s state Supreme Court hearing on November ballot measure banning same-sex marriage.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Gay marriage’s day in court: The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today on Proposition 8.”
The Sacramento Bee reports that “Supreme Court hears Prop. 8 debate today.”
The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Gay-rights activists march in San Jose and San Francisco on eve of legal arguments.”
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “Gay-marriage supporters rally against Proposition 8.”
The New York Times reports that “California Court to Weigh Gay Marriage Ban.”
Yesterday’s edition of The Orange County Register contained an article headlined “Shifting values influence court rulings on gay marriage; Prop. 8’s ban on gay marriage goes before state Supreme Court on Thursday as homosexuals are gaining more rights.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Gay activists march in Calif. ahead of showdown.”
“Court worried about big penalty for phone buyer”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report on a case argued today before the U.S. Supreme Court.
You can access the transcript of today’s oral argument in Abuelhawa v. United States, No. 08-192, at this link.
Interviewing Yoo about torture memos: Yesterday’s issue of The Orange County Register contained an article headlined “Ex-Bush lawyer talks about torture memos; Visiting Chapman professor wrote opinions on interrogation methods.”
“Gertner having second thoughts on Tenenbaum webcast order; invites motion for reconsideration”: Ben Sheffner has this post today at his “Copyrights & Campaigns” blog.
“Court: Federal Rules Don’t Protect Drugmakers From Consumer Lawsuits.” Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this news update.
Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Supreme Court rejects limits on drug lawsuits.”
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “A warning to the FDA.”
And the “Drug and Device Law” blog has a post titled “Wyeth v. Levine – First Real Thoughts.”
“Death by firing squad may not be an option in Idaho if bill passes; Idaho’s attorney general hopes to avoid potential appeals that could delay executions under the death penalty law”: This article appears today in The Idaho Statesman.
“Supreme Court rules patients can sue drug makers; The justices, acting in a Vermont case, reject the Bush administration’s contention that drug companies should be shielded from lawsuits if their products were approved by the FDA”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.
“Justice O’Connor on The Daily Show”: Howard Wasserman has this post (with links to video clips) today at “PrawfsBlawg.”
And ABCNews.com reports that “Former Justice Pushing for More Civics, Less ‘American Idol’; Sandra Day O’Connor Says Civics Lessons Have All but Vanished.”
“Court allows drug label lawsuit”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.” Lyle’s post begins, “The Supreme Court, voting 6-3, ruled that federal approval of labels giving warnings about effects of drugs does not bar lawsuits under state law claiming inadequate warnings.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Wyeth v. Levine, No. 06-1249, at this link. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer joined. Justice Breyer also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. filed a dissenting opinion, in which the Chief Justice and Justice Antonin Scalia joined.
You can access the oral argument transcript at this link.
In early news coverage, Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court rejects limits on drug lawsuits.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Wyeth, Drugmakers Lose as Top U.S. Court Allows Suits.”
And Reuters reports that “US top court rules against Wyeth in liability case.”
Divided three-judge Sixth Circuit panel reinstates lawsuit filed by women who complained of ill effects after having been gassed by pesticides at luxury resort hotel in Maui: You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Gass v. Marriott Hotel Servs. at this link.
And in news coverage of the ruling, The Associated Press reports that “Case of pesticides in Maui hotel will go to trial.”
“Justices Hear Arguments on Money-Court Nexus”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.
Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Justices Consider When a Judge Should Bow Out; Case Involves Campaign Contributor With Business Before Recipient’s Court.”
In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “High court weighs when judges should step aside; Expresses support for standard tied to appearance of bias.”
In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “High Court Split Over Case on Judicial Ethics.”
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “Supreme Court hears W.Va. recusal case; Should standard be established for judicial campaign contributions?”
The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette reports that “Justices clash over Benjamin case; Supreme Court debates fairness, campaign money.”
The Charleston (W. Va.) Daily Mail reports that “Manchin wants to examine court system.”
law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Justices Appear Ready to Set Recusal Rules.”
And online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a Supreme Court dispatch entitled “Cash Bar: The Supreme Court ponders when your right to a fair trial collides with their right to be divine.”
“Custody case of same-sex couple back in state court; Woman filed suit to be sole parent in Frederick in 2004”: This article appears today in The Northern Virginia Daily.
And The Associated Press reports that “Ex-lesbian appeals custody case again.”
“California Supreme Court may reveal stance on Prop. 8 on Thursday; The hearing will be televised; demonstrations are planned statewide; The justices will rule on whether to uphold the gay-marriage ban and the marriages of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
And today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article headlined “Prop. 8 hearing: majority vote, minority rights.”
“Louisiana criminal defense lawyer: ethical violation for blogger/attorney to contact witnesses.” Today at his “Copyrights & Campaigns” blog, Ben Sheffner has a post that begins, “Here’s one near and dear to my heart: a criminal defense attorney in Louisiana has threatened to file state bar ethics charges against a California attorney and blogger who, in the course of reporting for his blog, contacted a witness in the Louisiana attorney’s case.”
“Al-Marri: Case should go ahead.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “ACLU Opposes Dismissal of al-Marri Case.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Lawyers ask Supreme Court to rule in terror case.”
“High Court Split Over Case on Judicial Ethics”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this news update.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a news update headlined “Supreme Court mulls W.Va. justice bias case.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Massey Case Prompts High Court to Weigh Restrictions on Judges.”
This evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “High Court Weighs Judicial Ethics” (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg.
And The West Virginia Record has a report headlined “Tough day for both sides of judicial recusal case.”
“Supreme Court limits challenges to logging in federal forests”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.
“Justice Dept. May Release More Terrorism Memos”: Neil A. Lewis and Charlie Savage will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.
“Here We Go Again: Obama shouldn’t get away with the same tricks in al-Marri that Bush got away with in Padilla.” Emily Bazelon has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Md. high court sets legal standard for outing online foes”: David L. Hudson Jr. has this analysis online at the First Amendment Center.
My earlier coverage of the ruling appears at this link.
“Supreme Court rules for Eritrean asylum seeker”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.
Access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22: The Court has posted the transcript onine at this link.
“Supreme Court Hears Judicial Bias Case; West Virginia Case Called One of the Most ‘Extreme’ Bias Cases to Come Before the Supreme Court”: ABCNews.com provides this report.
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “In search of a limiting principle.”
Books recently received in the mail: Three books to note today —
1. “Mystery Writers of America Presents The Prosecution Rests: New Stories about Courtrooms, Criminals, and the Law,” edited by Linda Fairstein (available April 14, 2009);
2. “Above the Law,” by Tim Green (the book, not the blog); and
3. “Patient Zero,” by Jonathan Mayberry.
“Court curbs right to sue over public land policy”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
Today’s rulings of note from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: On behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Ed Carnes has issued another opinion with a must-read opening paragraph:
When Robert Shaw was thirteen years old he hurled a rock through a car windshield, sending shards of glass into his victim’s face. Fifteen years later Shaw was speeding through Miami, with a cocked and loaded pistol and ski masks, on his way to burglarize a “drug hole.” His rap sheet during the intervening years is long enough to require extra postage. It shows 27 arrests involving 62 counts, and sentences totaling at least 105 months in spite of receiving one break after another from the system. Indeed, from Shaw’s criminal record it seems as though he is determined to serve a life sentence, albeit on the installment plan. The question this appeal presents is whether the current installment is a reasonable one.
Last month, the Fulton County Daily Report published this article about Judge Carnes.
And a second opinion issued today — this one written by the Eleventh Circuit’s Chief Judge — provides further evidence that judges don’t always appreciate lawyers who sue other lawyers, even when the lawsuit has merit.
“This case requires us to answer a question of first impression in this Circuit: Do bounty hunters constitute state actors for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when they conduct a search in the course of seeking out a bail-jumper?” So begins an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued today.
Three-judge Ninth Circuit panel examines the liability of the Vatican for the alleged sexual abuse of a boy by a priest in Oregon: You can access today’s lengthy ruling at this link. The per curiam majority opinion begins, “We consider whether, on the allegations made in the Plaintiff’s complaint in this case, the Holy See is entitled to immunity from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.”
Law professor Marci A. Hamilton represented the plaintiff on appeal. You can access the oral argument audio via this link (Windows Media Player required).
