Programming note: On Wednesday morning, I will be rearguing an appeal before a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. I originally argued this appeal on February 2, 2016, and I posted my client’s Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee in the case (the second of two cases I was arguing that day before the same three-judge panel) in this earlier post.
The original three-judge panel announced that it was deadlocked on May 1, 2017 after one of the three judges on the panel recused himself. The recusal and the deadlock were disclosed simultaneously that day.
Arguing against me on appeal — as he has in many high-value appeals in which I have been fortunate to represent the prevailing plaintiff — is Dechert attorney Robert C. Heim, a leader of Philadelphia’s corporate defense bar in cases of great importance.
Being good lawyers themselves, Heim and his colleagues can be counted on to recognize and pursue the strongest arguments available to their client on appeal. In this case, the defendant-appellant’s principal arguments are that the trial judge as finder-of-fact issued findings that lack support in the evidence and that the trial judge was biased against the defendant and insurance companies in general. The outcome of the appeal, some 20 months after its original oral argument, remains to be decided.
As a result of my oral argument on Wednesday morning, additional posts will appear here on Wednesday afternoon.
“Federal judge panel upholds Alameda County’s controversial gun ordinance”: David DeBolt of The East Bay Times has this report.
And Nick McCann of Courthouse News Service reports that “2nd Amendment Doesn’t Include Right to Sell Guns, Full 9th Circuit Rules.”
You can access today’s ruling of an 11-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.
“Court reinstates family’s lawsuit against deputy who fatally shot man in Eloy”: Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.
“But none of this matters because California doesn’t have a death penalty.” So writes Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski in a dissent from a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.
“An Even More Insidious Kind of Gerrymandering: In North Carolina, Republicans want to use redistricting to kick Democrats off the courts.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“In victory for Trump, Supreme Court dismisses travel ban case”: Richard Wolf and Gregory Korte of USA Today have this report.
Adam Liptak of The New York Times reports that “Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Case on Expired Travel Ban.”
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court dismisses case against Trump’s expired travel ban.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court dismisses 1 of 2 travel ban cases.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court tosses one of two travel ban challenges.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “High Court Dismisses One Trump Travel Ban Case, May Drop Second.”
And Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court dismisses one of two travel ban cases.”
You can access this evening’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.
“How Appealing Still Appeals”: This blog and its author are the subject of the alumni profile written by Andrew Faught contained in the Fall 2017 issue of Emory Lawyer magazine, an issue whose cover features an image from the law school’s recent Centennial Gala.
“Attorneys in the Clutch”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.
“McConnell tries to defuse conservative anger over stalled judicial nominations”: Seung Min Kim and Burgess Everett of Politico.com have this report.
Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases, but the Court did call for the views of the Solicitor General in one case.
