“Trial Over Death Threats Against Federal Judges Could Test Free Speech Rules Online; Media lawyers say case may carve out new precedent to cover the Internet free-for-all of invective”: Lynne Marek of The National Law Journal has this report. This version of the article should be freely accessible without registration, unlike the version of the article that I linked to yesterday.

“Pfizer faces $103 million in Prempro damages”: This front page article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an article headlined “Another Loss for Pfizer in Drug Suits.”

In The Legal Intelligencer, Amaris Elliott-Engel reports that “Drugmakers Get Double Dose of Bad News Over Hormone-Replacement Therapy Products; Jury sets $34 million in punitive and compensatory damages Monday; an earlier verdict, unsealed the same day, is for $78 million.”

And Dow Jones Newswires report that “Pa. Jury Orders Pfizer To Pay $28 Million In Punitive Damages.”

“Pfizer Units’ Damages for Menopause Drugs Exceed $165 Million”: Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “Two Pfizer Inc. units have been ordered by juries to pay more than $165 million in punitive damages to women who developed cancer after taking a menopause drug, the women’s lawyers said.”

And The Associated Press reports that “$75M verdict unsealed in Prempro-cancer case.”

“Ga. high court rules mower isn’t a motor vehicle”: The Associated Press has this report on a 4-3 ruling that the Supreme Court of Georgia issued today.

“Abortion slaying suspect may use necessity defense”: The Associated Press has this report.

“NY’s top court rejects prison phone rate refunds”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “New York’s highest court ruled Monday that families forced to pay high phone rates to talk to relatives in state prison won’t receive refunds for the cost.”

You can access today’s ruling of the New York State Court of Appeals — that State’s highest court — at this link.

“How much threat raised by threat: Trial over calls for death of 7th Circuit judges could test free speech rules online.” Lynne Marek of The National Law Journal has this report (free registration required).

“USA Today Supreme Court Correspondent Joan Biskupic, fmr. Dpty. Solicitor General Maureen Mahoney & Attorney David Frederick join a panel discussion previewing upcoming Supreme Court cases”: You can view this past Saturday’s broadcast of C-SPAN’s “America & the Courts” by clicking here.

And if you’re one of those for whom a one-hour SCOTUS preview is simply not enough, you can view the entire two-hour panel discussion by clicking here.

“Grape board’s ads immune to legal challenge”: Bob Egelko had this article Saturday in The San Francisco Chronicle.

My earlier coverage of last Friday’s Ninth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“Lawsuits place global warming on more dockets”: This article appears today in USA Today.

“Hagan drove court nominations”: Today’s edition of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina contains an article that begins, “Word about North Carolina’s shoddy representation on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reached U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan last year the way such political concerns often do: by way of a friend of a friend.”

“R.I. Supreme Court appointment may be delayed”: This article appeared Saturday in The Providence Journal.

“Post-Pizza: Who will judge Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?” Jeffrey Toobin has this “Talk of the Town” essay in the November 30, 2009 issue of The New Yorker.

And today’s edition of The New York Times contains an article headlined “Terrorism Trial May Point Way for 9/11 Cases.”

“Lethal injection creator fine with 1 drug in Ohio”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The man considered the father of lethal injection in the United States said it doesn’t matter whether three fatal drugs are used or one — as his home state of Ohio has proposed — as long as the drug works efficiently.”

“Prosecutors Drop Plans to Appeal Lori Drew Case”: Kim Zetter has this post at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.

“Experts: Success unlikely in Kevin Cooper’s bid to Supreme Court.” Yesterday’s edition of The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin contained this article, along with an article headlined “Defense organizations lobby Supreme Court in support of Cooper.”

“South Florida man at forefront of effort to legalize gay adoption”: This article appears today in The South Florida Sun-Sentinel, along with an article headlined “DCF lawyer: Put gay man’s kids back up for adoption.”

“New face of court testimony”: Today’s edition of The Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph contains an article that begins, “When a Nashua detective took the witness stand to testify against accused child molester Jose Hernandez, he wore a piece of clothing more commonly worn by a burglar or stickup artist: a ski mask.”

You can access Tuesday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire at this link.

“Pa. beer sales at center of court case”: This article appears today in The York Sunday News.

“U.S. Supreme Court: Will the justices walk the way of the cross?” Michael Kirkland of UPI has an article that begins, “Sometime soon, the U.S. Supreme Court again will be obliged to rule on the constitutionality of a religious symbol on public land.”

“Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces Retirement”: Mike Scarcella has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Addicted, followers at trial can’t get enough; For attorneys, law students and regular folks, the Petters saga has it all”: This article appears today in The Minneapolis Star Tribune.

“Court ruling clears way for bonfire lawsuits”: Chuck Lindell has this article today in The Austin American-Statesman.

And The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Texas Supreme Court may send A&M bonfire case back to trial court.”

“Do Defendants Get Enough Warning About a Guilty Plea’s Consequences?” Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has this report.

“Utah Supreme Court rules strip club tax constitutional; escort tax isn’t”: Today’s edition of The Deseret News contains an article that begins, “The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that a state tax imposed on strip clubs is constitutional. Its imposition on companies offering escort services, however, is unconstitutional.”

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

“Fight Over Jewish Symbol Heads to Trial”: John Schwartz has this article today in The New York Times.

My earlier coverage of this recent Seventh Circuit en banc ruling appears at this link.

“Prison holds promise for job-strapped town; Politicians can argue about detainee danger, but work is work”: Saturday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain an article that begins, “On the edge of a cornfield 150 miles from Chicago lies a prison, all but vacant, that could become the new Guantanamo.”

And The Kansas City Star has a news update headlined “Ashcroft says trying terrorists in federal court jeopardizes U.S. safety.”

“Ex-Smoker Wins Against Philip Morris”: Saturday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “Legal experts predict that thousands of tobacco lawsuits could gain momentum in Florida after a Fort Lauderdale jury ordered Philip Morris USA to pay $300 million to a former smoker who says she needs a lung transplant.”

“These Men Could Kill SarbOx: Two tenacious Washington lawyers have the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in their sights–and they just might take it down.” BusinessWeek posted this article online yesterday.

“Judge: Ciavarella, Conahan immune from civil suits for in-court actions.” The Citizen’s Voice of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania has a news update that begins, “A federal judge has ruled that former judges Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. are immune from damages in civil suits stemming from the kids-for-cash scandal for actions they took in court, but not for their out-of-court actions.”

And The Associated Press reports that “2 Pa. judges given partial immunity in civil suit.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania at this link.

“$6M verdict upheld in McDonald’s strip search case”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, ” A Kentucky appeals court upheld a $6.1 million award to a former fast food worker who was forced to strip in a McDonald’s restaurant office after someone called posing as a police officer.”

And NBC affiliate WAVE 3 TV in Louisville, Kentucky reports that “Appeals court upholds $6 million award in McDonald’s strip search case.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky at this link.

“What the Law Commands”: At the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has a post that begins, “The ostensible topic of a recent argument before the Supreme Court was lawyering, but the real subject turned out to be judging. An exchange between Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and one of the lawyers was illuminating.”

In addition, Greenhouse has this recent law review article about Justice Stephen G. Breyer (via “SCOTUSblog“).

“Gay Marriage Gets Boost from Ninth Circuit”: law.com’s Dan Levine has a report that begins, “Not one to be left out of a constitutional thicket, Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski granted health benefits Thursday to the same-sex partners of court employees. Kozinski’s order comes a day after his colleague, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, issued his own published directive that a federal public defender be awarded back pay because his same-sex partner’s benefits had been denied.”

And today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article headlined “Give in on same-sex benefits, judge orders feds.”

The order that Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued yesterday can be accessed here.

Just in time for Thanksgiving — a federal appellate court considers whether chickens, turkeys and other domestic fowl are excluded from the humane slaughter provisions of the “Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958“: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this ruling today. Today’s decision fails to resolve that question, holding instead that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.

“We are again faced with the question whether a state statutory scheme requiring growers to fund generic advertising for promotion of an agricultural product violates the First Amendment.” So begins a ruling that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today. Table grapes are today’s First Amendment food item. As for the court’s holding, today’s majority opinion concludes, “The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Table Grape Commission on the ground that its promotional activities constitute government speech and are thus immune to challenge under the First Amendment.”