“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.”
“Personal trainer Bryant Johnson’s clients include two Supreme Court justices”: This article will appear Wednesday in the Style section of The Washington Post.
The contents of March 2013 issue of The Yale Law Journal can now be accessed online: Via this link.
“Until proven guilty? Freeing seized assets via pretrial hearing.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report.
“Utah Appellate Clinic Secures Victory for Child Pornography Victims”: The University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law issued this news release today reporting on a partial victory that the school’s appellate clinic achieved yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
“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.
“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.
“Government changes course on graphic cigarette warnings”: David Ingram of Reuters has this report.
“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.
“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.”
“Judges asked to rule on warrantless GPS tracking”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Guantanamo hunger strike grows; military says total now 24”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this report.
“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.
“Prompt release of marriage audiotapes”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“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.
“Judge’s views about Facebook result in new sentence in child porn case”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report on a summary order that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.
“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.”
“U.S. Appeals Court Hears NLRB Recess Appointment Case”: Bloomberg News has this report.
“Can the government take a raisin? Farmer challenges Depression-era law.” Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report.
“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.
“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.”
“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.
“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.”
“Ruling stands: Brainerd woman must pay $222,000 for illegal music downloads; The decision ends an eight-year battle between copyright owners and a Minnesota woman who is left owing $222,000 for sharing 24 songs online.” This article appears today in The Minneapolis Star Tribune.
And The Associated Press reports that “Woman who lost downloading case says she can’t pay.”
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.”
“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.”
“High court to rule on forest plan challenge”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
“U.S. top court looks for meaning in obscure bankruptcy term”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.
“Plaintiff lawyers seek new avenues to sue generic drugmakers”: Terry Baynes of Reuters has this report.
“Are Republicans Abusing the Filibuster on Nominees?” Law professor Cass R. Sunstein has this essay online at Bloomberg View.
“One Person One Vote (or Was That One Voter One Vote?)”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak has this new installment of his “Sidebar” column.
“Ban on Gay Marriage Led Lawyers to Shift Role”: Adam Liptak has this front page article today in The New York Times.
And in yesterday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage had an article headlined “Couples in gay marriage case await a landmark ruling; This month, the Supreme Court will consider whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act wrongly denies gay spouses equal benefits under federal law.”
