“Sens. Hatch, Cornyn say they’ll vote against Sotomayor”: David Lightman and Maria Recio of McClatchy Newspapers have this report.
And The Christian Science Monitor has articles headlined “Sotomayor’s views on property rights cause concern; She was part of an appeals-court panel in 2006 that favored a private developer with the authority to seize land by eminent domain” and “State of diversity on the courts: Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination draws focus to the gains of minority and female judges nationwide.”
“L.A. federal judge closes civil trial over JDL member’s murder in prison; The privacy granted to the case involving the 2005 killing of the Jewish Defense League’s Earl Krugel is condemned by constitutional lawyers as a violation of the 1st Amendment”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Abortion fight is ‘enduring divide’; Argument has intensified again recently”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.
“Religious headscarves now OK in Georgia courts”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this news update.
And The Associated Press reports that “Georgia courts to allow religious head coverings.”
“Conservative unease with common law: Reject judicial activism, reject an American tradition.” Nicholas Stephanopoulos has this op-ed today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
“Massey drops recusal lawsuit against W.Va. Supreme Court”: The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette has this news update.
And The Associated Press reports that “Massey drops lawsuit against WVa Supreme Court.”
“Should Ted Olson Argue in Citizens United?” Tony Mauro has this interesting post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
D.C. Circuit holds that conservative group lacks standing to sue to require the Secretary of Defense to enforce the Solomon Amendment against the University of California-Santa Cruz: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
Received in today’s mail: A copy of the book “Federal Appellate Practice” by the law firm Mayer Brown LLP.
Law professor Eugene Volokh has been discussing the book in a series of posts that have appeared recently at “The Volokh Consipracy,” and I am looking forward to reviewing the book and sharing my thoughts about it sometime soon.
Update: Eugene’s most recent post about the book is titled “Answering Questions at Oral Argument.”
“Utah’s Hatch opposes Sotomayor nomination”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Appeals court demands accounting for Indian trusts”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.
“GOP Sen. Cornyn to vote against Sotomayor”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Moreno: History Is on My Side on Proposition 8.” Today’s issue of The Recorder of San Francisco contains an article that begins, “Carlos Moreno stood alone in May when he dissented from the decision upholding Proposition 8. But the California Supreme Court justice says history will prove him right — that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is illegal discrimination.”
“Hacker Can Be Sued for Fraud Under Securities Exchange Act, Says 2nd Circuit”: law.com has this report.
My earlier coverage of Wednesday’s Second Circuit ruling appears at this link.
If a jury is erroneously instructed that it must find the plaintiff was at least 51 percent responsible for causing an accident, and the jury then finds the plaintiff was 53 percent responsible, did the erroneous instruction constitute harmless error? A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit confronts that question in a ruling issued today.
The majority holds that the instruction did not constitute harmless error, while the dissenting judge would hold that the instruction was harmless error since the jury found that the plaintiff was more than 51 percent at fault.
