“Supreme Court denies stay of execution in Texas for Mexican”: Reuters has a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court denied a stay of execution for Mexican national Edgar Tamayo on Wednesday, allowing Texas to put to death the convicted killer who is also at the center of a diplomatic dispute.”

You can view this evening’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“Supreme Court weighs how much one person should pay pornography victim”: Robert Barnes will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The Washington Post.

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Child porn: $3.4 million for two photos? Court grapples with restitution; The US Supreme Court hears arguments on whether consumers of child pornography should pay full restitution for the harm caused the child victim — or some proportional share.”

“We’ve Got Your Number”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“U.S. appeals court won’t revisit California fuel standard ruling”: Dan Levine and Rory Carroll of Reuters have this report.

And Courthouse News Service reports that “Calif. Emissions Dispute Inspires Biting Dissent.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit denying rehearing en banc, and the opinions concurring in and dissenting from that order, at this link.

“Cape Wind and FAA win federal court case over turbines and radar”: The Cape Cod Times has this news update reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“How Much Does Doyle Paroline Owe? He possessed two pornographic pictures of 8-year-old ‘Amy’; Should he pay her $3.4 million in restitution? Or $0?” Emily Bazelon has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Justices Struggle to Determine Restitution Over Child Pornography”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Justices debate restitution for child porn victims.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Carrie Johnson had an audio segment titled “In Child Pornography Cases, Collectors Might Be Charged Too.”

“Court: Marotta is a father, not merely a sperm donor; Man responding to Craigslist ad now responsible for child support.” The Topeka Capital-Journal has this news update.

Appellate pet peeve: Why not install the italics font pack? Much more frequently than I would prefer, I see appellate briefs and motions filed by major law firms that simply use slanted plain text for italics in place of actually installing and using the italics font pack for the font that the document’s author has elected to use.

Compare the italics used in this important rehearing petition (italics font pack not installed) filed today in the Seventh Circuit with the italics used on page one of Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s opinion (italics font pack installed) that a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court issued today in Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 12-1128.

One readily identifiable difference is how an italicized lower case “a” appears if the italics font pack has or has not been installed. If the italicized font pack is good enough for the U.S. Supreme Court to use, then it is good enough for practicing lawyers to use as well. Just one appellate lawyer’s humble opinion.

“Appeals court rules offshore oil leases in Alaska Arctic are too flawed”: The Anchorage Daily News has this update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Judges say Arctic offshore lease sale was flawed.”

You can access at this link today’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Supreme Court upends top patent court’s ‘burden of proof’ rule; The burden of proving infringement is always on a patent owner, high court says”: Joe Mullin of Ars Technica has this report.

And at “Patently-O,” Dennis Crouch has a post titled “Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit: Holds that Patentees Always have Burden of Proving Infringement.”

“Judges build on Supreme Court’s Windsor ruling to extend gay rights”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

“Justices ponder ‘straw purchasers’ gun law”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: When compromise is the problem.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Abramski v. United States, No. 12-1493.

Update: At Politico.com, Josh Gerstein has a blog post titled “Justices wrestle with law key to Fast & Furious storm.”

“Supreme Court weighs restitution in child pornography case; Justices want victim to be compensated, but they don’t like the options”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices weigh child porn restitution.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Sorting out the blame.”

“Anonymous pre-election hit piece on Horne was legal, attorneys argue”: Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has an article that begins, “A lawyer for the Democratic Attorneys General Association told the state Court of Appeals Tuesday that organizations have a constitutional right to run what amounts to anonymous ‘hit pieces’ on candidates right before the election.”

“9th Circuit’s Decision in Big Lagoon Case Spells Trouble (breakdown)”: Today at the “Turtle Talk” blog, Bryan Newland has this post about a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

The substance of the blog post begins, “Judge Block’s analysis contained in the decision was so stunningly and thoroughly poor, that there is not enough space or time to address every wrong point in this post (and this is a long post).”

The majority opinion was written by a senior U.S. District Judge visiting from outside of the Ninth Circuit and joined in by a Senior Ninth Circuit Judge. The third judge on the panel, a Ninth Circuit Judge in active service, dissented. As a result, this case may have a better than ordinary chance of obtaining en banc review.

“Chancery appeals to US Supreme Court on secret panels”: Sean O’Sullivan and Maureen Milford of The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware have this report.

“Online game has law nerds lining up for bragging rights”: This front page article featuring Josh Blackman appears today in The Houston Chronicle.

“Court struggles with restitution for child porn”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Update: You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Paroline v. United States, No. 12-8561.

Access online today’s ruling in an argued case of the U.S. Supreme Court: Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 12-1128. You can access the oral argument via this link.

Update: In news coverage, Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court tosses out Medtronic pacemaker patent loss.”

Victory for the plaintiff in Lance v. Wyeth: As I noted yesterday evening, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided yesterday the appeal that I had orally argued on behalf of the plaintiff more than two years and four months ago.

Due to yesterday’s large snowstorm in the Philadelphia area, the Pa. Supreme Court’s Philadelphia filing office wasn’t able to post the majority or dissenting opinion online yesterday. Thus, I did not know whether the outcome of the case noted in the docket — affirmed in part and reversed in part — signified a full or partial victory for my client or a total defeat.

This morning, Pennsylvania’s highest court posted the opinions in the case online, consisting of the majority opinion in which four justices joined and a dissenting opinion in which two justices joined. The bottom line is that my client prevailed, making the long wait for a ruling at least somewhat more palatable.

You can access the briefs filed in the case via two earlier posts, here and here.

“Sexual Orientation Is No Basis for Jury Exclusion, a Federal Appeals Court Rules”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.