“Muslim defendant can sue over hijab removal”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this news update.

And The Orange County Register has a news update headlined “Appeals court rules defendant had right to wear Muslim head scarf.”

My earlier coverage of today’s en banc Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Supreme Court Justices Are Nerds; Mel Gibson Somehow Involved”: Nick Greene has this post at the “Runnin’ Scared” blog of The Village Voice.

“Jailed 6 years as argument rages over expert witness”: Joseph A. Slobodzian has this article today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“State’s justices to take to the radio airwaves”: Today’s edition of The Des Moines Register contains an article that begins, “The Iowa Supreme Court, which had three justices ousted by unhappy voters in November, is trying another tack in an effort to improve communications with the public.”

“Take the Plain-English Push With a Grain of Salt”: Attorney Martin J. Siegel has this appellate advocacy essay in today’s issue of Texas Lawyer.

“Appeals court reinstates case by Muslim over scarf”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court unanimously reinstated a lawsuit Tuesday filed by a Muslim woman who accused Southern California jailers of violating her religious freedom when they ordered her to take off her head scarf in a courthouse holding cell.”

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

My earlier coverage of the original three-judge panel’s ruling in this matter appeared in a post titled “Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s judicial hotness has finally been enshrined in an appellate opinion.”

“Judicial Leaders Warn Of ‘Dire’ Budget Concerns”: At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post that begins, “Calling the lack of a budget a ‘dire situation,’ the chairman of the Judicial Conference executive committee warned today that a government shutdown could bring litigation to a halt with delayed jury trials, limited pre-trial services and deferred payments to court-appointed lawyers.”

The Associated Press reports that “Federal courts face shutdown as well under impasse.”

And the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts today issued a news release titled “Judicial Leaders Hear Concerns Over Funding.”

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania grants review to determine what types of negligence claims can be brought against the manufacturer of a dangerous prescription drug: In this case, known as Lance v. Wyeth, both the plaintiff and the defendant had sought Pa. Supreme Court review of various aspects of the Pa. Superior Court‘s ruling, which you can access here.

By means of an order entered today, the Pa. Supreme Court granted each side’s petition for allowance of appeal, accepting for review the issues as phrased by the each side.

Defendant Wyeth phrased the issues on which it sought review as follows:

(1) Whether the Superior Court erred in creating a new claim for “negligent design defect” of a prescription drug, despite Plaintiff-Respondent Patsy Lance’s repeated waiver of that claim?

(2) Whether the Superior Court’s creation of a new cause of action for “negligent design defect” conflicts with this Court’s settled precedent limiting product liability claims against manufacturers and sellers of prescription drugs?

(3) Whether the Superior Court’s creation of a new cause of action for “negligent design defect” should properly be argued before this Court because it may affect hundreds or thousands of cases and ignores that: (a) plaintiffs in design defect cases must plead and prove a “feasible alternative design”; and (b) there should be deference to regulatory authorities?

Plaintiff Lance phrased the issues on which she sought review as follows:

(1) Did the Superior Court err in holding, in an acknowledged conflict with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s prediction of Pennsylvania law, that Pennsylvania law would not recognize a claim against a prescription drug manufacturer for negligent failure to test to discover a prescription drug’s actual harmful side-effects?

(2) Did the Superior Court err in holding that Pennsylvania law would not recognize claims against a manufacturer of a prescription drug, which the federal Food and Drug Administration ultimately ordered withdrawn from the market as too dangerous for any potential users, for negligently marketing that drug and for negligently failing to withdraw that drug from the market?

I served as plaintiff’s appellate lawyer on appeal to the Pa. Superior Court and will be continuing to serve as plaintiff’s appellate lawyer before the Pa. Supreme Court. I previously linked to online copies of the opposing parties’ petitions for allowance of appeal in this earlier post. Plaintiff’s answer in opposition to Wyeth’s petition for allowance of appeal can be accessed here.

Finally, the Pa. Supreme Court’s docket entries evidencing today’s grants of review in this case can be accessed here.

Update: The Pa. Supreme Court’s order granting review can now be accessed online at this link.

“Filings in the Federal Judiciary Continued to Grow in Fiscal Year 2010”: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts issued this news release today.

Programming note: I will be one of the panelists on a lunchtime CLE program taking place today in Philadelphia. Additional posts will appear here this afternoon.

“Court denies two Secret Service agents immunity from Beaver Creek man’s wrongful-arrest lawsuit”: In today’s edition of The Denver Post, Felisa Cardona has an article that begins, “Two U.S. Secret Service agents who arrested a Beaver Creek man for allegedly harassing former Vice President Dick Cheney in 2006 were denied immunity from a federal lawsuit by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Federal court: Colorado man can sue Secret Service.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at this link.