How Appealing

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

“Justices Explore Fine Line on Generic Drug Injuries”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court examines generic-drug maker’s liability.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court hears suit over liability of generic drug makers; The Supreme Court hears arguments on whether Americans who are hurt by generic drugs can hold the drug maker liable for their injuries.”

And online at The Hill, Sam Baker has a blog post titled “Supreme Court weighs limits on lawsuits over dangerous drugs.”

Posted at 11:00 PM by Howard Bashman

“Personal trainer Bryant Johnson’s clients include two Supreme Court justices”: This article will appear Wednesday in the Style section of The Washington Post.

Posted at 10:48 PM by Howard Bashman

“Until proven guilty? Freeing seized assets via pretrial hearing.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report.

Posted at 10:22 PM by Howard Bashman

“We Aren’t in Kansas Anymore”: At her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post that begins, “For curious observers of the inner workings of the federal judiciary, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued an interesting one-man opinion Tuesday, turning down a Kansas judge’s offer to help try a complex class action in California.” You can access the opinion at this link.

Posted at 10:12 PM by Howard Bashman

“Harry Reid Reaps What He Sowed; The failure to reform the filibuster is already taking a toll”: Timothy Noah has this essay online today at The New Republic.

Posted at 8:52 PM by Howard Bashman

“Gay marriage in the U.S. Supreme Court: Berkeley couple at the center of historic fight over Proposition 8.” Howard Mintz will have this article Wednesday in The San Jose Mercury News.

Posted at 8:37 PM by Howard Bashman

“Court weighs US passport dispute over Jerusalem”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court had some tough questions Tuesday about the politically sensitive issue of whether Americans born in Jerusalem can list Israel as their birthplace on their U.S. passports.”

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post titled “D.C. Circuit Grapples with ‘Sensitive’ Dispute Over Jerusalem.”

Posted at 6:15 PM by Howard Bashman

“Indefinite Articles — Dear judges: Stop trying to figure out what the founders meant by every little word; You can’t, and it doesn’t matter.” Online at Slate, law professor Eric Posner today has an essay that begins, “Last week, the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling that several so-called recess appointments made by the president were invalid.”

As noted a few posts below, today a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral argument in another case involving the recess appointment issue.

Posted at 4:50 PM by Howard Bashman

“SCOTUS to class action bar: You can’t stipulate out of federal court.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report.

Posted at 3:44 PM by Howard Bashman

“Court: Can generic drug maker be sued over design?” Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, No. 12-142.

Earlier, today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an article headlined “U.S. high court to take up case of generic drug tied to Phila. firm.”

And in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Tevi Troy has an op-ed titled “The Best Prescription for Pre-Emption: Would you rather have a jury or medical experts judge drug safety?

Update: In other coverage of today’s oral argument, Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Patients’ Generic-Drug Lawsuits Questioned by High Court.”

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court weighs generic drugmaker liability.”

Posted at 3:28 PM by Howard Bashman

“Was Religious Accommodation Needed For SCOTUS Arguments In Same-Sex Marriage Cases?– An Editorial Commentary.” Howard Friedman has this post today at his “Religion Clause” blog.

Posted at 2:22 PM by Howard Bashman

“President Reif writes to MIT community regarding release of documents related to Aaron Swartz case”: The president of MIT issued this open letter today.

In early news coverage, The Tech — MIT’s student newspaper — has an online report headlined “Plans for releasing Swartz evidence: MIT plans to make documents public, but with names redacted.”

The Boston Globe reports that “MIT agrees to release documents in Aaron Swartz case.”

The Boston Herald reports that “MIT to release documents related to Swartz case.”

And Gerry Smith of The Huffington Post has a report headlined “MIT Officials Subject To ‘Pattern of Harassment And Personal Threats’ Since Aaron Swartz’s Death.”

Posted at 11:44 AM by Howard Bashman

“Constitution Check: Can there be no exceptions to Second Amendment gun rights?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

Posted at 11:33 AM by Howard Bashman

“State wants to charge citizens to see public court records”: Today’s edition of The Press Democrat of Santa Rosa, California contains an article that begins, “Viewing a public file at the Santa Rosa courthouse will cost $10 under a proposal from the state’s judicial branch that is drawing fire from critics who say it will limit access to public information.”

Posted at 11:14 AM by Howard Bashman

Access online today’s rulings in argued cases of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court today issued two rulings in argued cases.

1. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. 11-697. Justice Elena Kagan issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined in full and Justice Antonin Scalia joined in part. You can access the oral argument audio via this link.

2. And Justice Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450. You can access the oral argument audio via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court sides with student in case over textbooks” and “High court rules for insurer in class-action suit.”

Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rules against publisher on copyright protections” and “Supreme Court rules for insurer in class action case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “EBay Wins as Top Court Backs ‘Gray Market’ Discount Goods” and “Class-Action Suits Curbed as Court Backs Travelers Unit.”

And at the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Supreme Court Rules Against Entertainment Industry in Book Publishing Case; Justice Stephen Breyer delivers majority opinion holding that the ‘first sale’ doctrine applies to works bought overseas and resold in the United States.”

Posted at 10:06 AM by Howard Bashman

“Justices appear divided on Arizona voting law”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Supreme Court hears challenge to Arizona’s voting requirements; Demanding extra proof of citizenship is a violation of federal ‘motor voter’ laws designed to streamline registration, say lawyers for civil rights groups; The justices sound divided.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “High Court Weighs Voter ID Law.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.

Today’s edition of The Arizona Republic reports that “U.S. Supreme Court justices ask tough questions on voter registration law; Measure aimed at keeping illegal immigrants off voter rolls.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Citizenship papers a must to register to vote? Supreme Court to decide; US Supreme Court on Monday heard a case about an Arizona law requiring prospective voters to show papers proving they are US citizens; Federal law requires only an oath under penalty of perjury; Can a state tack on that extra provision?

And on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Tests Limits Of Voter Registration Law.”

Posted at 9:51 AM by Howard Bashman