Programming note: On Thursday, two separate cases on which I am working will be argued before the same three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and (as noted in this post from earlier today) I will be presenting a portion of the oral argument in one of them. As a result, additional posts will appear here Thursday afternoon.
In the interim, appellate-related developments may appear on this blog’s Twitter feed, which is now approaching 5,000 followers.
“If past is prelude, SCOTUS will just tinker in this term’s class action cases”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.
“Pa. High Court Favors Workers In Noncompete Ruling”: Dan Packel of Law360.com has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued today.
The ruling consists of a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and a dissenting opinion.
The ruling is of particular interest to me because it provides additional support for my clients’ position in an appeal I will be arguing on December 2, 2015 in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
“Supreme Court grants resentencing to man convicted of East Liberty murder”: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a news update that begins, “A man convicted of beating a woman into a coma in East Liberty in 1993 — and then convicted of third-degree murder when she died of her injuries in 2007 — could go free following a resentencing hearing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Wednesday.”
And The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “State top court rules man in 1993 beating death must be resentenced.”
Between the time that the defendant committed the criminal acts and the victim’s resulting death some 14 years later, the legislature increased the penalty for the degree of murder that the defendant was later convicted of committing. The question presented was whether the sentencing range in effect at the time the criminal acts were committed or the increased sentencing range in effect when the victim died should apply.
Today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of a majority opinion, two concurring opinions (here and here), and a dissenting opinion.
“A Practitioner’s Five-Point Plan to Improve the Pa. Supreme Court”: This new installment of my “Upon Further Review” column appeared in last Tuesday’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.
You can freely access the full text of the column via Google News.
“Supreme Court refuses to kill Pa.’s ‘wrongful birth’ law”: Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.
And Dan Packel of Law360.com reports that “Pa. High Court Affirms Law Banning ‘Wrongful Birth’ Suits” (subscription required for full access).
My earlier coverage of today’s Pa. Supreme Court ruling can be accessed here.
“Opponents of Christo’s Over The River art project make last legal stand; U.S. Court of Appeals hears oral arguments it case challenging Bureau of Land Management’s 2011 approval plan to drape Arkansas River in fabric”: Jason Blevins of The Denver Post has this news update reporting on a case argued today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
And The Associated Press reports that “Opponents ask federal appeals court to throw out permission for Christo’s Over the River work.”
“A Conversation with Justice Sonia Sotomayor”: The video of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s conversation yesterday afternoon with Dean Wendy Perdue at the University of Richmond School of Law can be viewed online, on-demand at this link.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania rejects “single subject” challenge to law banning wrongful birth and wrongful life suits, holding that challenge arose too long after enactment of the legislation: You can access today’s unanimous ruling of Pennsylvania’s highest court at this link.
“Americans deeply split on abortion as Supreme Court takes case: Reuters/Ipsos poll.” Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.
“Campus Unrest and the Fisher Affirmative Action Case”: Law professor Michael C. Dorf has this essay online today at Justia.com’s Verdict.
And today at his “Dorf on Law” blog, he has a related post titled “Diversity and Remediation.”
“The Stealth Corporate Takeover of the Supreme Court: Three cases under consideration show how Big Business is using the court to tilt the law in its favor.” Simon Lazarus has this article online today at the New Republic.
“Fallible But Final: Why Justice Scalia is Wrong About the Supreme Court’s Authority.” Evan Bernick has this blog entry today at The Huffington Post.
“Law Professor Challenges the Seeming Federal Endorsement of Duke Nonbinding ‘Guidelines’ on Proportionality Amendments”: Patricia W. Moore has this post at the “Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog.”
“After final appeal, NFL retirees can finally get help”: Former NFL player Nick Lowery, perhaps with the assistance of a lawyer or two, has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Tomorrow, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is scheduled to hear an hour of oral argument — likely to extend much longer — in In Re: National Football League Players Concussion Injury Litigation.
Among the five lawyers arguing for objectors will be attorneys Steven F. Molo, Deepak Gupta, Charles Becker, and me (I’ll be representing objector Craig Heimburger and his wife).
Arguing in favor of affirmance will be law professor Samuel Issacharoff (representing class counsel) and Paul D. Clement (representing the NFL).
Once the Third Circuit posts the audio of the oral argument online, I will link to it.
“At UR, Sotomayor says justices are ‘members of this society'”: Karin Kapsidelis has this article in today’s edition of The Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Fox News Latino has a report headlined “Sotomayor had to be convinced to become first Hispanic justice: ‘This isn’t about you.’”
And Mark Robinson of Richmond Magazine has a report headlined “Holding Court: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor speaks to students, faculty at University of Richmond.”
“Constitution Check: Where does Justice Kennedy now stand on abortion rights?” Lyle Denniston has this post at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.
Finally a law-related blog post featuring the lyric “There’s no sex in your violence” from Bush’s Everything Zen: Today at “Concurring Opinions,” Ronald K.L. Collins has a post titled “FAN 85 (First Amendment News) ‘Is phone sex violent?’ — Posner challenges lawyer in online classified advertising case.”
You can access via this link the audio of last Friday’s Seventh Circuit oral argument in Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart (18.8 MB mp3 audio file).
In news coverage of the case from yesterday, Jason Meisner of The Chicago Tribune reports that “Appeals court limits sheriff in fight over online sex ads.”
Aamer Madhani of USA Today reports that “Appeals court orders Cook County sheriff to cease campaign against Backpage.”
And Jonathan Bilyk of CookCountyRecord.com reports that “Seventh Circuit orders Dart to back off Backpage.com, pending appeal of injunction denial.”
“Board overboard”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an editorial that begins, “The Judicial Conduct Board, the panel designated to investigate the myriad misdeeds of Pennsylvania’s judiciary, has so thoroughly botched its probe of Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin as to raise a question: Who should investigate the Judicial Conduct Board?”
