“New appeals process works, Supreme Court clerk says; High court required to produce written rulings on all cases”: The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette has this news update.

“Christie’s newest Supreme Court nominee will get a hearing, Sweeney says”: The Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey has this news update.

“EA plans to appeal Keller case to Supreme Court”: USA Today has a report that begins, “Video game manufacturer Electronic Arts plans to appeal two cases involving the use of college athletes’ names and likenesses to the U.S. Supreme Court, the company said in a court filing Monday.”

“Supreme Court Petition Challenges Secrecy of Bin Laden Images”: Marcia Coyle has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

And at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Osama Bin Laden Photo Flap Heading to Supreme Court.”

“Roberts names judge to panel that hears rare appeals of surveillance court rulings”: In Tuesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article that begins, “Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appointed a longtime federal judge to the panel that reviews rare government appeals when a special court that oversees the nation’s surveillance system turns down a Justice Department request.”

“Scalia: Court shouldn’t ‘invent new minorities.'” The Associated Press has this report.

“Barkett to leave appeals court”: Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a news update that begins, “Judge Rosemary Barkett will leave the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 30, opening up another vacancy to fill for President Barack Obama.”

Alyson M. Palmer of The Fulton County (Ga.) Daily Report has an article headlined “Barkett Leaving 11th Circuit For Hague Post.”

And at the “Southern District of Florida Blog,” David Oscar Markus has a post titled “Judge Rosemary Barkett is leaving the 11th Circuit.”

Today’s Pa. Supreme Court victory: As noted in the beginning of this earlier post, back on November 27, 2012, I represented the plaintiff in presenting oral argument to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on the following issue:

Did the Commonwealth Court err or otherwise abuse its discretion in ruling on summary judgment in favor of the MCARE Fund that Dr. S.’s negligence constituted only one rather than two occurrences of medical malpractice for purposes of the MCARE Act?

Today, a unanimous Pa. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on that issue, overturning the Commonwealth Court‘s entry of summary judgment and remanding the matter for trial.

You can access the majority opinion at this link and a concurring opinion at this link.

And we are back: I wish the explanation for this blog’s disappearance today was something more sexy than the expiration of law.com’s credit card in the files of this blog’s web hosting service and the apparent departure from law.com of those people designated to receive notice of an expired credit card, but sadly that is not the case.

In any event, now having paid the overdue charges out of my own pocket for the time being, “How Appealing” is back!

“Judge blocks Oklahoma ‘morning after’ pill law”: The Oklahoman has this news update.

And The Tulsa World has a news update headlined “Judge blocks Oklahoma morning-after pill law.”

“Supreme Error: North Carolina’s new voter suppression law shows why the Voting Rights Act is still necessary.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.