“Justice Department opposes fast track on Virginia’s health-care suit”: Jim Nolan has this article today in The Richmond Times-Dispatch.

“Delaware law on abortion trapped in legal limbo; Ban after 20 weeks is unconstitutional”: This article appears today in The Wilmington News Journal.

“Wal-Mart Gender Bias Case May Mean ‘Rough Justice’ for Companies”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“The Court’s Recusal Problem”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

“Ga. executions off: DEA seizes critical drug”: The Associated Press has this report.

And today’s edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that “DEA seizes Georgia’s supply of lethal injection drug.”

“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.

“Administration wants to slow health care challenge”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The Obama administration says the Supreme Court should not permit Virginia to sidestep a federal appeals court in the state’s challenge to the health care law.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “U.S.: Wait on health care review.”

“MLB Umpire Injured by Foul Ball Awarded $775K in Suit Against Sporting Goods Company”: Zoe Tillman has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Appeal denied in school Confederate clothing case”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has refused to rehear a suit by an Anderson County high school student who was punished for wearing Confederate clothing.”

You can access at this link today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denying rehearing en banc and the dissent therefrom of Circuit Judge Danny J. Boggs.

My earlier coverage of the original three-judge panel’s ruling can be accessed here.

“Senior judges keep 9th Circuit courthouses open; As federal caseloads soar and judgeships go unfilled because of a recalcitrant Congress, some retired judges continue to handle cases; Many are in their 80s”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Judge Posner Dissents on Mock Trials”: Jess Bravin has this post today at WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog.

“Supreme Night Court: Judges Relax By Trying the Fictitious and the Dead; Justice Kennedy Puts Hamlet in the Dock; Lights, Action and, in This Case, Cameras.” Jess Bravin has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Family fights to sue Bank of America after Woburn man’s suicide; Many investors unknowingly sign away their right to sue”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

“An ethics code for the high court”: Nan Aron will have this op-ed Monday in The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court decision on sentencing guidelines gives judges more leeway”: Robert Barnes will have this article Monday in The Washington Post.

“More have unfavorable view of Vander Plaats”: Today’s edition of The Des Moines Register contains an article that begins, “Bob Vander Plaats, the Iowa social conservative leader and three-time candidate for the Republican governor’s nomination, traded off unfamiliarity for unfavorability during his go-for-broke campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices in last year’s retention vote.”

“Former Utah justice Zimmerman offers Zen to the masses”: Last Tuesday’s edition of The Salt Lake Tribune contained this article.

“10th Circuit Court opening could allow Obama to balance the appointments”: This article appears today in The Denver Post.

“Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks martyr?” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.

“Matthew Snyder’s mother: ‘Glad free speech prevailed’ in Supreme Court case; She did not support the lawsuit against picketers, and hopes her son will not be connected to ‘a vile group of people.'” This article appears today in The York (Pa.) Sunday News.

“Justices have been siding with workers, underdogs; Although the Supreme Court is often viewed as pro-business and conservative, it has taken the other side in several recent cases; Observers call it a useful reminder that the court isn’t predictable”: David G. Savage will have this article Sunday in The Los Angeles Times.

“Boies, Clement join NFL legal team”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The NFL is making two additions to its legal team – David Boies, who represented Al Gore during the recount fight in the disputed 2000 presidential election, and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement.”

And Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will contain articles headlined “The Shutdown Pushes the Fight for Field Position Into the Courtroom” and “Court in Minnesota Has Been a Home Field for a League’s Labor Disputes.”

“All the Aggregation That’s Fit to Aggregate: How much more of itself can the media consume?” Bill Keller will have this essay in tomorrow’s edition of The New York Times Magazine.

“Commonwealth Court denies Forum theater’s expansion plans”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “The Forum, one of Philadelphia’s last pornographic movie theaters, was denied permission Friday to turn its building into a full-service emporium with nude dancers and rooms for private encounters, after Commonwealth Court struck down a zoning variance that had outraged surrounding Center City neighborhoods.”

You can access yesterday’s unpublished ruling of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“Court Papers: Komisarjevsky Told Police That Hayes Set Deadly Fire; Part Of Cheshire Defendant’s Statement To Police Released For 1st Time.” This article appears today in The Hartford Courant.

Today’s edition of The New Haven Register contains an article headlined “‘There was no reason for them to die’; Komisarjevsky, in offer to plead guilty, says Hayes lit fire in Petit home.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Home invasion defendant offers to plead guilty.”