“6 names on list for chief of SJC; Patrick decision could come soon”: Today’s edition of The Boston Globe contains an article that begins, “The short list of candidates to replace Margaret H. Marshall, the retiring chief justice of the state Supreme Judicial Court, includes a federal court judge, a state Appeals Court justice, and three associate justices of the SJC, people familiar with the selection process said yesterday.”

“Supreme Court hears convict’s appeal in DNA case”: The Associated Press has this report.

You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Skinner v. Switzer, No. 09-9000, by clicking here.

Oral versus verbal: The Associated Press reports that “Court grapples with verbal v. written complaints.”

You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., No. 09-834, by clicking here.

Of course, written complaints can themselves be verbal when such complaints consist of written words.

“Vaccine Case Before Justices Turns on the Language of a Law”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

And The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports today that “Mt. Lebanon vaccine case heard by Supreme Court.”

“No jurors picked yet in ‘pizza bomber’ trial”: This article appears today in The Erie (Pa.) Times-News.

“Steven Hayes Defense Outlines High Cost Of Putting Someone To Death”: The Hartford Courant has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Conn. judge hears arguments on death penalty cost.”

“The Appellate Safety Valve: When Courts of Last Resort Decide To Overrule Precedent Sua Sponte.” That’s the title of this month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column, which appeared in Monday’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

The column focuses on a decision that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued on September 29, 2010 following reargument in a case captioned Freed v. Geisinger Medical Ctr. That ruling conisted of a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and two dissenting opinions (here and here).

“Lackawanna County doctor loses appeal in landmark malpractice case”: This article appears today in The Scranton (Pa.) Times-Tribune.

As very careful readers of this blog may recall, I briefed this case on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellees and presented oral argument on appeal in May 2010. Plaintiffs’ appellate brief and earlier news coverage can be accessed via this post.

You can access yesterday’s non-precedential ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“Gore vs. the Supreme Court: The justices and the ‘CSI effect.'” Columnist Dana Milbank has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.

“Ternus decries anti-judge vote”: Today’s edition of The Des Moines Register contains an article that begins, “Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus on Tuesday said that efforts to unseat justices because of last year’s gay-marriage ruling are an attempt to intimidate judges and force the opponents’ political beliefs on the courts.”

“U.S. Supreme Court to hear Oneida Indian Nation foreclosure case”: The Utica Observer-Dispatch contains this article today.

“Supreme Court to hear Lansdale woman’s appeal of terrorism conviction in domestic dispute”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Daily News contains an article headlined “Should Lansdale housewife have faced federal charge?”

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Chemical weapon attack or domestic dispute? Supreme Court will decide.”

“9th Circuit upholds Washington’s campaign-disclosure laws”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

“NASA contractors want retraction from Justice Department”: The Washington Post has a news update that begins, “Contractors working for NASA are calling on Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal to retract statements made last week to the Supreme Court regarding which agency facilities the contractors can access with their identification badges.”

“Justice Thomas and His Wife”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

“Supreme Court weighs whether parents can sue vaccine makers; Congress set up a fund years ago to compensate parents whose children suffered bad side effects; judges have said that law bars lawsuits against manufacturers”: David G. Savage will have this article Wednesday in The Los Angeles Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Justices divided on allowing lawsuits in childhood vaccine cases.”

In Wednesday’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic will have an article headlined “Case tests vaccine court vs. state-law claims.”

The Washington Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court considers consequences in vaccine case.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court appears split by infant vaccination case; The Supreme Court hears arguments in a lawsuit filed against the manufacturer of a vaccine that left a 6 month old girl developmentally impaired.”

Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “High Court Superstars Take Shots in Vaccine Case.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “High court divided over vaccine safety appeal.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Vaccine Makers Get Mixed Reception From U.S. Justices.”

Reuters reports that “Confused Supreme Court to decide on vaccine suits.”

And this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Hears Case On Vaccine Lawsuits” featuring Nina Totenberg.

“Feds appeal Mass. rulings against US marriage law”: The Associated Press has this report.

Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Appeals Ruling That Threw Out Defense of Marriage Act.”

Reuters reports that “Obama administration appeals gay marriage ruling.”

And at his “Under the Radar” blog at Politico.com, Josh Gerstein has a post titled “Obama admin. appeals DOMA ruling.”

“High court hears case about vaccine side effects”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Update: You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 09-152, by clicking here.

“D.C. Circuit Pick Discloses Income, Political Contacts”: David Ingram has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Court to rule on child interviews”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

And at the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Justices to Weigh Police Questioning at School.”

“Collar bomb trial set to begin in Erie”: Today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Paula Reed Ward has an article that begins, “More than seven years after a ghastly crime in Erie caught the world’s attention, the final defendant in the case is scheduled to go on trial this week. Jury selection in the case against Marjorie Diehl Armstrong, 61, accused of being the mastermind in a plot in which a man wearing a collar bomb was used in a bank robbery, begins Tuesday.”

Yesterday’s edition of The Erie Times-News reported that “Diehl-Armstrong trial likely to reveal mysteries of ‘pizza bomber’ case.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Trial starting in bizarre Pa. collar-bomb case.”

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: It is available at this link. The Court today granted review in six cases and requested the views of the Solicitor General in one case. In addition, the Court will schedule oral argument in due course on an exception to the Special Master’s First Interim Report in an original jurisdiction case.

In Weise v. Casper, No. 10-67, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued an opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari, in which opinion Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Court: Do in-school interviews require warrants?“; “Court: Does terrorism law apply to jealous wife“; “Court sends back Buddhist temple killing case“; “Court won’t reconsider tax targeting nude bars“; “Court rejects appeal of 2 ejected from Bush event“; and “Court won’t stop hormone replacement lawsuits.”

“A Lone Stance on Ad Spending: Montana Is Seeking to Uphold Campaign-Funding Curbs Jeopardized by a Supreme Court Ruling.” Jess Bravin will have this article Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal.

“Special court throws out Keller charges”: Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has a blog post that begins, “A special court of review has thrown out the public rebuke given to Presiding Judge Sharon Keller, who had been admonished for closing the Court of Criminal Appeals to an after-hours appeal from an inmate facing imminent execution.”

The San Antonio Express-News has an update headlined “Court dismisses sanction against Keller.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Reprimand tossed for ‘We close at 5’ Texas judge.”

You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“Vaccine Case to Be Heard by Justices”: This article will appear Tuesday in The New York Times.

“Vanity Plates, the First Amendment, and a Judge on the Rise”: Andrew Cohen has this essay at “Politics Daily.”

“Vaccine makers targeted in lawsuit; Hannah Bruesewitz’s parents think a DPT vaccination caused the child’s seizure disorder, but the vaccine maker is protected from suits by federal law”: Paula Reed Ward has this article today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

“Law punishing fake heroes may go to Supreme Court”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Hayes’ lawyer will argue death penalty too costly; Prosecutor calls tactic ‘irrelevant'”: Saturday’s edition of The New Haven Register contained an article that begins, “With the start of the penalty phase of the Steven Hayes trial a little over a week away, attorneys for the former Winsted man have filed legal papers indicating they will use an economic argument to keep their client from being put to death for the murders of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters.”

“Getting to Five”: In the Sunday Book Review section of today’s edition of The New York Times, Dahlia Lithwick has this review of the book “Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion” by Seth Stern and Stephen Wermiel.

And in today’s edition of The Newark Star-Ledger, Stewart Pollock — formerly a Justice on the Supreme Court of New Jersey — has a review of the book headlined “Newark native judged by his belief that human dignity was a right.”

“Goering, a museum and Nazi-looted art”: Michael Kirkland of UPI has a report that begins, “How many years, how many laws or court rulings, how many regulations does it take to wash the tragedy from a work of art? What makes an artwork — stolen from desperate people, part of what would become the largest claim of restitution involving Nazi theft — clean enough to be kept in a museum? The U.S. Supreme Court may have a try at finding out.”

“Seamy allegations don’t fit Jack Camp’s courtly life”: This front page article appears today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

And in today’s edition of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans, columnist James Gill has an essay entitled “Judges gone wild all over the South.”

“The Competition for Supreme Court Cases”: Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“In Topeka, the Price of Free Speech”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger has an article that begins, “As the United States Supreme Court heard arguments last week over a small church that pickets the funerals of dead soldiers, comparisons quickly emerged to an earlier test of the bounds of the First Amendment: a 1977 decision that American neo-Nazis had a right to march through a Chicago suburb where many Holocaust survivors lived.”

“Specialists’ Help at Supreme Court Can Come With a Catch”: Adam Liptak has this front page article today in The New York Times.