“Montana 3rd state to allow doctor-assisted suicide”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The Montana Supreme Court said Thursday that nothing in state law prevents patients from seeking physician-assisted suicide, making Montana the third state that will allow the procedure.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Montana at this link. And you can access the briefs filed in the case via this link.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania overturns trial court’s entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict against plaintiff who had won at trial in a hormone replacement therapy breast cancer case: You can access today’s ruling, by a unanimous three-judge panel, at this link.

This is a case in which I serve as appellate counsel for the plaintiff/appellant. I previously furnished online access to the plaintiff’s appellate briefs in this post that appeared on February 24, 2009, the date on which I argued the appeal.

“Prop. 8 campaign documents ruling reaffirmed”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court reaffirmed its ruling Wednesday that allowed sponsors of California’s ban on same-sex marriage to withhold campaign strategy documents from gay rights advocates who are seeking to overturn the ballot measure.” You can access yesterday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

And in related news, The Associated Press reports that “Judge says televised Prop. 8 trial possible.”

“Court vacancies erode our system of justice”: Law professor Carl Tobias has this op-ed today in The San Antonio Express-News.

“Court says US can stay mum about Guantanamo surveillance; Lawyers for Guantanamo detainees want surveillance records; An appeals court ruled Wednesday that agencies could refuse to confirm or deny the existence of such records for national security”: Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

The Associated Press reports that “Court rules US can keep secrets in surveillance.”

law.com reports that “2nd Circuit Rejects Lawyers’ Petition for Records of Intercepted Calls.”

And at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Court: Feds Can Hide Alleged Spying on Gitmo Lawyers.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Second Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“‘Why the delay’ on campaign-finance case? Supreme Court observers await ruling on corporate spending during elections.” Joan Biskupic had this article yesterday in USA Today.

Plus, Joan now has a blog where she gets to post about provocative issues such as who will be the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice to retire.

Speaking of which, next week Justice David H. Souter makes his long-awaited reappearance behind the bench for oral arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Perhaps this time he’ll stick around long enough to actually decide some cases.

“No right to bear unlicensed machine guns, federal court says; Tennessee State Guard commander Richard Hamblen said it’s his Second Amendment right as part of a militia to convert assault rifles into fully automatic weapons; The Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed”: Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Sixth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

And in other Second Amendment-related news, Orin Kerr notes at “The Volokh Conspiracy” that the Brief for Respondents has been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case captioned McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“Apple Wins Dismissal of Suit Over IPod Hearing Loss”: Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “Apple Computer Inc., the maker of the bestselling iPod digital music player, won a federal appeals court ruling upholding dismissal of a lawsuit claiming the device and headsets sold with it are defective and the company doesn’t adequately warn about the possibility of hearing loss.”

Reuters reports that “Apple wins appeal over alleged iPod hearing loss.”

Dow Jones Newswires report that “US Appeals Court Backs Dismissal Of IPod Noise Lawsuit.”

And WSJ.com’s “Digits” blog has a post titled “Court Holds IPod Blameless for Hearing Loss.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“California to seek review of decision overturning body-armor law; Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown will petition the state Supreme Court to review a lower court’s ruling that overturned a law barring violent offenders from possessing body armor”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

And today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “State to challenge body armor ruling.”

My earlier coverage of the ruling appears here and here.

Is Are successful on appeal? No he isn’t, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled in a decision issued today.

Second Circuit affirms rejection of FOIA lawsuit brought by attorneys for Guantanamo detainees seeking records showing whether the federal government has intercepted those attorneys’ communications relating to the representation of their detainee clients: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in this Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by clicking here.

“[W]hatever the individual right to keep and bear arms might entail, it does not authorize an unlicensed individual to possess unregistered machine guns for personal use.” So holds a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a decision issued today.

“Prop. 8 backers say TV coverage of trial unwise”: In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “Sponsors of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, which faces a federal court trial in San Francisco next month, have told the trial judge that his suggestion to televise the proceedings is both unwise and illegal.”

“US appeals court nixes Vatican Bank Holocaust suit”: The Associated Press has this report on a non-precedential ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

On the agenda: This morning I’ll be wrapping up the Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees due today in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in the case that caused me to travel to Scranton, Pennsylvania back on May 1, 2009.

May 1st was also the day after news broke late the night before that Justice David H. Souter was planning to retire from the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Consumer Review Website Wins 230 Dismissal in Fourth Circuit–Nemet Chevrolet v. ConsumerAffairs.com”: At his “Technology & Marketing Law Blog,” law professor Eric Goldman has this post about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Federal court restricts Taser use by police; Ninth Circuit ruling — allowing an officer to be held liable for injuries a man suffered after being Tasered — sets a precedent that may force agencies to revisit their policies”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today’s edition of The Sacramento Bee reports that “Sacramento Sheriff McGinness defends Taser use after ruling.” And yesterday’s newspaper contained an article headlined “Federal appellate court limits cops’ use of Tasers.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday that “Taser ruling sets standards for police, claims.”

The San Jose Mercury News reports that “San Jose use of Tasers faces new scrutiny after federal court ruling.”

The Contra Costa Times reports that “Federal appeals court curbs stun gun use by police.”

The Denver Post reports that “Court’s limits on Taser use could affect police use of less-than-lethal device.”

Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that “Court Denies Qualified Immunity to Officer Sued Over Taser Use.”

And law.com reports that “9th Circuit Says Police Officer Can Be Sued for Tasing.”

You can access Monday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link. The three-judge panel that issued the decision consisted of Circuit Judges Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt and Kim McLane Wardlaw.

“Book review: Justice Kennedy’s law; Understanding the ‘swing voter.'” At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has this review of Frank J. Colucci‘s recent book, “Justice Kennedy’s Jurisprudence: The Full and Necessary Meaning of Liberty.”

“We granted review in this case to determine whether a court may consider the reasonableness of attorney fees claimed in a breach of contract action where the contract does not specify that the fees incurred must be reasonable.” So begins the majority opinion in an interesting case that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided yesterday.

Of the five justices who participated in the ruling, three joined in the majority opinion, one issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, and the court’s chief justice issued a dissenting opinion.

Pennsylvania’s highest court is about to undergo, once again, a change in personnel at the start of a new year, and as a result yesterday that court issued a large number of new rulings. Many more rulings may yet be handed down before the end of 2009.

“Supreme Court has saved toughest cases for second half”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

“Infamous ‘Wardrobe Malfunction’ Case Heading Back to 3rd Circuit”: Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer has this report.

“Longtime judge John C. Godbold, dies at 89”: This obituary appeared yesterday in The Montgomery Advertiser.

According to the obituary, “Godbold, appointed to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by President Lyndon Johnson in 1966, became chief judge of the circuit in 1981. When the region formerly covered by the circuit was divided and the new Eleventh Circuit was created, Godbold became chief judge of the new circuit, thus making him the only person ever to serve as chief judge of two different federal circuits.”

“Supreme Court: New justices, same narrow divide.” Today’s edition of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch contains an editorial that begins, “The last 10 years have seen a major shift in personnel on the United States Supreme Court, but it remains as narrowly divided on most issues as it has been for the last 30 years.”

In today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail: Kirk Makin reports that “Courts falling short on effort to keep natives out of jail; Ten years after landmark ruling, prison numbers tell a dismal story.”

And in other news, “Polygamist predicts opponents will be ‘damned’; Religious leader who police say has 25 wives comes out swinging in online missive about legal case.”

“Death penalty changes went too far, some say; After Oklahoma City bombing, measures were passed to speed up appeals process”: The Oklahoman contains this article today.

And The Houston Chronicle reports today that “Harris County loses state lead in executions; Texas prison records show effect of 2005’s life-without-parole option.”

“Sacramento joins battle against suit attacking Chicago gun controls”: This article appears today in The Sacramento Bee.

“Mexico antiabortion forces swaying state legislatures; A year after the Supreme Court upheld a Mexico City law allowing abortion in the first trimester, 17 states have amended their constitutions to protect the unborn”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“State’s bills stack up in fight over anti-abortion laws; The costs include a $97,000 fee paid to an expert in abortion law and the time of state employees”: This article appears today in The Tulsa World.

“Minor, ex-judges await law review”: Jerry Mitchell has this article today in The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi.

“Stand Your Ground Law vexing Fla. courts; Florida’s 2005 Stand Your Ground law, which broadens a citizen’s right to use deadly force, is vexing courts across the state”: This article appears today in The Miami Herald.

“U.S. Supreme Court: How private are employee texts, e-mails?” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.

“Sandra Day O’Connor is our Arizonan of the Decade”: This editorial will appear Sunday in The Arizona Republic.

“Chief calls for appeal of ‘misguided’ armor ruling”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “San Francisco’s police chief is strapping on his rhetorical armor to press the state’s top cop to challenge an appeals court ruling that might make it easier for violent felons to don bulletproof vests before setting out on a crime spree.”

“Judges Gone Wild: Michigan defines judicial bias down.” This editorial appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Nevada Supreme Court: Pharmacies not liable in case ; Man was killed when struck by car driven by woman on prescription painkillers.” Yesterday’s edition of The Las Vegas Review-Journal contained an article that begins, “The Nevada Supreme Court ruled 5-2 Thursday that eight pharmacies in Las Vegas cannot be sued for negligence in the death of a man killed by a motorist under the influence of prescription drugs purchased at their businesses.”

The Las Vegas Sun reported yesterday that “Justices rule pharmacies not liable for drug-induced mishaps.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that “Nevada High Court Says Pharmacies Can’t Be Sued for Death.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Pharmacies can’t be sued in death case.”

You can access Thursday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Nevada at this link.