“The principal question presented in this appeal is whether the first sale doctrine applies to copyrighted works produced outside of the United States but imported and resold in the United States.” In a decision issued today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit answers “no” by a vote of 2-to-1.
At issue in John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng was whether the defendant was properly held liable for damages on a theory of copyright infringement for having purchased textbooks overseas that he then resold in the United States. The majority opinion affirms the district court’s entry of judgment against the defendant for copyright infringement.
Second Circuit reinstates lawsuit raising disparate-impact issue that was expressly anticipated in Ricci v. DeStefano: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
“Threat law must use ‘listener’ guide, court rules”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “California’s laws against threatening a crime victim or witness are constitutional as long as they apply only when a reasonable listener would conclude the speaker was serious and wasn’t merely joking or blowing off steam, the state Supreme Court ruled last week.”
You can access last Thursday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link.
“California Supreme Court plays role in tort war”: Columnist Dan Walters has this op-ed today in The Sacramento Bee.
“Should David Hicks, ‘the Aussie Taliban,’ Profit from His Memoir?” Time magazine has this report.
“Legal drama flares in Florida drug-law case; Two Miami-Dade judges have rejected an Orlando federal court’s ruling that the state’s drug statute is unconstitutional”: Saturday’s edition of The Miami Herald contained this article.
“Some in Lizzie Borden’s Hometown Think Her Legend Is Out of Whack; Effort to Restore Her Reputation Cleaves History Buffs; No Burying the Hatchet Now”: This article appears today in The Wall Street Journal.
“11th Circuit strikes down individual mandate; Divided panel says portion of health care law mandating individuals to obtain health insurance exceeds Congress’ powers but allows rest of law to stand”: Alyson M. Palmer will have this article (free access) Monday in The Fulton County Daily Report.
“Records of alleged Supreme Court fight won’t be released until special prosecutor’s decision”: This article appeared yesterday in The Wisconsin State Journal.
“Cases lining up to ask Supreme Court to clarify Second Amendment rights”: Robert Barnes will have this article Monday in The Washington Post.
“Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Cracking the housing bust conspiracy.” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.
“Supreme Court is Elected, but Bears Perry’s Stamp”: The Texas Tribune has this report.
“Canada’s poor ranking in access to courts should be wake up call, Chief Justice says”: Kirk Makin of The Toronto Globe and Mail has this news update.
“Prosser’s recount got ample funding; Lawyer who worked on justice’s behalf has case pending before court”: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this news update.
“Health Law Mandate Is Rejected by Court”: Michael Cooper will have this article Saturday in The New York Times.
In Saturday’s edition of The Washington Post, N.C. Aizenman and Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Appeals court strikes down health-care law’s insurance mandate.” Tomorrow’s newspaper will also contain an editorial entitled “Health care and the Constitution.”
In Saturday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey will have an article headlined “Federal appeals court strikes down insurance mandate; The three-judge panel in Atlanta rules 2 to 1 that Congress does not have the power to require Americans to buy health insurance as required in President Obama’s healthcare law.”
And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Health-care reform law set back, setting stage for Supreme Court showdown; A federal appeals court rejects the individual mandate, the crux of Obama’s health-care reform; With another appeals court having already upheld the law, a Supreme Court showdown is far more likely.”
The idea of hacking into a university’s computer system to change bad grades to As apparently doesn’t have such a pleasant ending in reality: The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court upholds sentence in Fla. hacking conviction” reporting on a legnthy ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued yesterday.
According to The AP’s article, “Prosecutors say [the defendant] and two others in 2007 changed the grades of about 90 FAMU students, including raising 114 F’s to A’s.”
“11th Circuit Quotes Wilde (The Other One)!” The blog “South Florida Lawyers” has this post on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued yesterday.
Perhaps the most notable aspect of the ruling is the dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge Ed Carnes (whose Wikipedia entry contains a “How Appealing” cite) lamenting the temptation “for a district court judge to grant, and for appellate judges to affirm, summary judgment even when there is conflicting evidence on a material issue.”
“Court upholds conviction in Enron-related case”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today in the case captioned United States v. James Brown.
“Health Care Challenge Doesn’t Make the Cut”: Courthouse News Service has a report that begins, “Former California legislator Steve Baldwin and a right-wing legal group lack standing to challenge health care reform, the 9th Circuit ruled Friday, the same day that the 11th Circuit said the law was unconstitutional.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.
“Appeals court finds healthcare mandate unconstitutional”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.
Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Appeals court says key parts of health-care reform unconstitutional.”
Brent Kendall of Dow Jones Newswires reports that “Health-Law Mandate Ruled Unconstitutional.”
The Associated Press reports that “White House criticizes court’s health care ruling.”
Reuters has a report headlined “Analysis: Healthcare ruling and what it means.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Health insurance mandate struck down.”
“Appeals court strikes health insurance requirement”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.”
Bloomberg News reports that “Health-Care Mandate Ruled Unconstitutional.”
And Reuters reports that “Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law.”
You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link.
“In my experience, it is rare for three appellate judges to disagree with each other so thoroughly, but in this hard case it may be just as well. With only a narrow holding between us, we have at least avoided making bad law.” So concludes the separate opinion of Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown in a case in which all three judges on a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wrote separately.
Defying the odds on rehearing en banc in the Fifth Circuit: It is, no doubt, more difficult to obtain rehearing en banc of a three-judge federal appellate panel’s ruling when the ruling is unanimous. Nevertheless, a unanimous three-judge panel’s ruling did not stop the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from granting rehearing en banc in a case captioned Reed v. City of Arlington in February of this year.
Yesterday, in perhaps an even more unlikely development, the Fifth Circuit issued its en banc ruling in the case, and by a vote of 13-to-3 the en banc court disagreed with the original three-judge panel’s ruling. In fact, the only three dissenters were the three judges assigned to the original panel that decided the case.
“Mattel Files to Appeal Judge’s Award to MGA Entertainment in Bratz Case”: Bloomberg News has this report.
And The Associated Press reports that “Mattel to appeal $309M judgment in Bratz doll case.”
“Evans, 71, served on federal appeals court”: This obituary appears today in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
“Appeals court tosses injunction vs. Arizona abortion law”: The Arizona Republic has a news update that begins, “The Arizona Court of Appeals on Thursday threw out an injunction against portions of state law governing abortion that were passed in 2009.”
And Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has a news update headlined “Appeals Court: New Arizona abortion restrictions legal.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Arizona Court of Appeals at this link.
“Federal appellate Judge Terence Evans dies”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Supreme Court May Consider Whether Companies Can Be Sued Over Human Rights”: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has this report (via The New York Times).
“Reactions to death of Judge Terence Evans”: Bruce Vielmetti of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this post at that newspaper’s “Proof & Hearsay” blog.
Statement from Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook regarding the death of Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans: A reader has forwarded the following statement:
Our colleague Judge Terence T. Evans died last night, a victim of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and acute respiratory distress syndrome. He was only 71 years old and until recently had been playing golf regularly. His sudden decline was a shock to all who knew this athletic, outgoing, and witty man. People can reasonably debate whether he was better at golf or at law; his friends know that he did both very well indeed.
Terry Evans was educated at Marquette University (B.A. 1962 , J.D. 1967). After graduation, and a year as law clerk to Justice Horace Wilkie of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, he became an assistant district attorney for Milwaukee County. Private practice and the state bench followed. In 1980 he was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. His service there, including a stint as Chief Judge, ended in 1995 with his promotion to the court of appeals. He took senior status in 2010, after 30 years of active service to the federal judiciary, so that he could spend more time with his family and his golf game, but he continued to hear a substantial caseload. While on the district court he selected Diane S. Sykes as a law clerk; she became his colleague on the Seventh Circuit in 2004.
What his colleagues remember of him, in addition to his energy and his commitment to equal justice under law, was his joie de vivre. He was irrepressible, which lifted everyone’s spirits. His opinions were apt to include details about popular songs pertinent to the litigation, or the number of college football teams with the nickname “Bulldogs.” Crue v. Aiken, 370 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2004) (counting 53 “Eagles”, 43 “Tigers”, and only 40 “Bulldogs”). A trademark suit about toilet paper offered irresistible opportunity for irreverence, without being any the less analytic. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 15558 (7th Cir. July 28, 2011). And despite what the Supreme Court said in PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001), Terry Evans was firm in his belief that walking the course is a central element of the game of golf. See Olinger v. United States Golf Ass’n, 205 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2000).
All of his colleagues mourn his passing and convey sympathy to his family.
The court will hold a formal memorial service in the coming months.
Frank H. Easterbrook
Chief Judge
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
“Federal Judge Terence Evans dies overnight”: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an update containing this very, very sad news.
Update: The Journal Sentinel, in July 2009, published a profile headlined “Moving to senior status, Judge Evans seen as funny but no joke.”
On the day that this blog turned five years old in 2007, I traveled to Milwaukee to participate as a panelist at that year’s Seventh Circuit Judicial Conference. Judge Evans, whom I had long admired from afar and had occasionally spoken with by phone, had kindly volunteered to pick me up at the airport in Milwaukee because we had plans to attend that day’s Milwaukee Brewers game together (more details of the game can be accessed here). We had a little bit of extra time before the game, so Judge Evans and I stopped into his home, where he showed off some of the photographs of his family and beloved grandchildren. I also had the pleasure of spending a little bit more time with Judge Evans at dinner the next night.
I think that the first time I had ever heard from Judge Evans was in connection with a column of mine published in Philadelphia’s legal newspaper that a former law clerk of his had forwarded to the judge. In that column from June 2001, I described Judges Posner, Easterbrook, and Evans as “the best appellate opinion writers working today.” Judge Evans was calling on the phone to tell me that he enjoyed showing the column to his colleagues, Judges Posner and Easterbrook, as evidence that at least someone thought that he was as smart and talented as they were.
After my visit to Milwaukee in May 2007, Judge Evans and I would occasionally speak by phone or exchange emails, typically when one of our favorite sports teams was in the playoffs or nearing a milestone. He and I last corresponded not too long ago when I wrote to congratulate him on switching to senior status and to hope that he would perhaps get to spend more time with the grandkids as a result. U.S. Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans was a wonderful judge and an even better person. He will be missed.
“Pa. judge gets 28 years in ‘kids for cash’ case”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Ciavarella to be sentenced today”: This article appears today in The Scranton Times-Tribune.
The Citizens’ Voice of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania reports today that “Presiding judge’s responses to letters prompt questions.”
And The Times Leader of Wilkes-Barre contains an article headlined “Parents: Give him the max.”
“MSU study: Low-income earners 30 percent less likely to have cases heard by U.S. Supreme Court.” MLive.com has this report.
And Michigan State University today issued a news release headlined “Prisoners: Want to be heard? Get a good lawyer.”
“Arizona appeals immigration ruling to Supreme Court; Gov. Jan Brewer is seeking a ruling to revive the state’s controversial immigration law, SB 1070”: David G. Savage will have this article Thursday in The Los Angeles Times.
The Arizona Republic has a news update headlined “Brewer files appeal with U.S. Supreme Court over immigration law.”
And Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has a news update headlined “Arizona appeals to US justices on SB 1070.
