McClatchy Newspapers are reporting:
Greg Gordon has an article headlined "Supreme Court to consider whether voter ID law is constitutional
And Michael Doyle reports that "Divergent rulings complicate immigration law."
"Supreme Court case: Should you be able to vote without a photo ID? Arguments over Indiana's voter-identification law, the most stringent in the US, will be heard Wednesday."
Warren Richey will have this article
Wednesday in The Christian Science Monitor.
And at ABCNews.com, Dennis Powell has a report headlined "Supreme Court to Hear Voter ID Case; Supporters Say Law Combats Fraud; Others Charge It Unfairly Impacts Poor, Minorities."
"UC snubs ruling as interest adds up; University system asks for review of $34 million judgment by the state Supreme Court in rising student fees case":
The San Jose Mercury News today contains an article
that begins, "The University of California has asked the state Supreme Court to review a $34 million judgment, which has grown to $40 million with interest. UC attorneys said the unanimous November ruling by three appeals court justices was flawed and unfairly faulted the university for raising fees for some students after promising prices would remain stable. They also criticized justices for awarding money to students whose financial aid negated the 2003 fee hikes. If the Supreme Court declines to take on the case -- or if the university loses again -- UC will have to pay about 35,000 graduate and undergraduate students involved in the class-action suit."
"Breath analyzer is built up and picked apart in top N.J. court":
The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger today contains an article
that begins, "A computerized device that has widely replaced the Breathalyzer to detect whether a driver is drunk is either trustworthy or so riddled with problems that it violates drivers' constitutional rights. Those two pictures emerged during arguments before the New Jersey Supreme Court yesterday."
"Wesley Snipes' attorneys file appeal to have tax evasion trial moved from central Florida":
The Associated Press a few days ago published a report
that begins, "Wesley Snipes is trying again to have his federal tax-evasion trial moved from this central Florida city. Snipes' lawyer, Robert Barnes, filed a motion with a federal appeals court in Atlanta on Friday, arguing that U.S. District Judge William T. Hodges erred last month when he denied Snipes' motions to relocate and postpone the trial."
And The Ocala Star-Banner reports today that "Snipes trial delay axed by judge."
This afternoon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a per curiam opinion dismissing the actor's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
"Sand, Gravel and Stare Decisis":
At "The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times," Tony Mauro has a post
that begins, "An otherwise mind-numbing Supreme Court ruling this morning nonetheless contains an interesting debate among the justices about an issue that often comes up during confirmation hearings: stare decisis, or the importance of respecting precedent."
"Colville Tribes can pursue mining giant over pollution":
Today's issue of The Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington contains an article
that begins, "The Colville Tribes will get the chance to hold an international mining giant accountable under U.S. law for dumping a century’s worth of toxic waste into the Columbia River. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by Teck Cominco Ltd. to intervene in a lower court decision that the Canadian corporation is subject to U.S. environmental law."
"High court declines sturgeon case; Inaction means earlier rulings backing decision to list rare Alabama fish as endangered will stand": This article
appears today in The Mobile Press-Register.
And The Birmingham News reports today that "Sturgeon stays on protected list; High court declines industry coalition's case."
"What Does the Future of Death Penalty Look Like? 'Father of Lethal Injection' Procedure Reviewed by Court Says Executions Being Botched."
ABCNews.com provides this report
Voice of America reports that "US Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Lethal Injection Case."
And The Guardian (UK) reports today that "Lethal injections challenged in US supreme court."
"Abortion foes won't yield to legal setback":
The Detroit Free Press today contains an article
that begins, "Michigan's leading anti-abortion group said it would not give up on trying to pass another ban on so-called partial-birth abortion, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal Monday to revive debate on a 2004 state ban struck down by a lower court."
"750,000 dollars in damages for cuckolded husband":
Agence France-Presse provides a report
that begins, "A Mississippi businessman must pay more than 750,000 dollars in damages to the man whose wife he wooed away, after the US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal in the case."
"Ex-trial lawyer Stephens joins state Supreme Court":
The Olympian of Olympia, Washington today contains an article
that begins, "Appellate judge Debra L. Stephens of Spokane was sworn in Monday as the 92nd justice to serve on the Washington Supreme Court."
And The Associated Press reports that "Stephens sworn in on state's high court."
The Associated Press is reporting:
Now available online are articles headlined "Court Imposes Strict Deadline in Lawsuit
" and "Appeals Judges Question Safavian Ruling
"Padilla co-defendant asks for CIA documents; Fireworks erupted on the eve of Jose Padilla's sentencing as lawyers for a co-defendant moved to reopen the case by seeking classified statements by an al Qaeda operative":
Jay Weaver has this article
today in The Miami Herald.
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports today that "Judge rules destruction of CIA tapes has no bearing on Padilla conviction; CIA tapes had no bearing, judge rules."
And The Associated Press reports that "Sentencing Begins for Padilla, 2 Others."
"Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Lethal Injection": This segment
(transcript with link to audio) featuring Marcia Coyle appeared on yesterday evening's broadcast of the PBS program "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
"A Litigator's Nightmare: Late Filing Costs Client $1 Million."
At WSJ.com's "Law Blog," Peter Lattman has a post
that begins, "It's a litigator's worst dream -- costing your client serious money by missing a filing deadline. That nightmare was a reality for MoFo, which appears to have cost its client Toshiba America $1 million when it was one-minute late -- 1 minute! -- in filing a motion for attorneys fees."
In fairness, the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California reveals that the judge would in any event have denied the motion for attorneys' fees due to its substantive inadequacy.
The ruling raises other issues. Why didn't the lawyers file the motion electronically using that federal district court's electronic filing system instead of having a courier deliver it to the clerk's office in rush hour traffic on the last day for timely filing? And why doesn't the Los Angeles-based federal district court have a late filing box where after-hours court filings can be time-stamped and filed, allowing anything filed in person before midnight to be treated as filed on the date of deposit even after the clerk's office has closed?
Update: The district court's web site states here that "The drop-off box service has been discontiuned" [sic]. Apparently inadequate funding from the U.S. Congress is to blame for that court's reduced hours of operation.
Second update: Also, it appears that the Central District of California did not implement electronic filing in all civil cases until January 1, 2008. Thus, electronic filing may not have been an option for filing the motion for attorneys' fees in question.
"Court rules on Claim Court powers":
Lyle Denniston has this post
at "SCOTUSblog" reporting on the one and only decision that the U.S. Supreme Court
issued today in an argued case.
Today's ruling issued in John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, No. 06-1164. You can access the oral argument transcript at this link.
When the ruling becomes available, we shall learn if the Court has definitively resolved whether the company sells sand and gravel and was named after "John R." or whether the company was named after "John R. Sand" and sells "& gravel."
Update: You can access today's 7-2 ruling in the case -- containing much discussion of stare decisis -- at this link.
On today's broadcast of NPR's "Morning Edition":
The broadcast contained audio segments entitled "Supreme Court Seems Split Over Lethal Injection
" (featuring Nina Totenberg
); "Congress, DOJ Investigations of CIA Could Interfere
"; and "Kansans Call Grand Jury Over Abortion Clinic
RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
"'Dykes on Bikes' trademark OKd - challenger rebuffed by high court":
Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article
that begins, "A San Francisco motorcycle club gained long-sought legal approval Monday for its trademark of the name 'Dykes on Bikes' when the U.S. Supreme Court turned away a challenge from a lawyer who said the term denigrated men."
"Justices seem unswayed by lethal injection foes; The high court doubts arguments that a three-drug compound causes cruel and unusual punishment":
David G. Savage has this article
today in The Los Angeles Times.
Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports today that "Supreme Court justices struggle with lethal-injection case."
James Oliphant of The Chicago Tribune reports that "Court weighs lethal cocktail; Justices' reactions range from derisive to deeply concerned."
In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that "Court Seems Divided On Execution Protocol."
The Louisville Courier-Journal reports that "Justices appear divided on Baze lethal-injection case; 2 Kentucky inmates claim punishment cruel, unusual."
And Hearst News Service reports that "Court hints at unease over ban on lethal injection; Justices weigh whether drugs could cause pain."
"Tinkering with Lethal Injection: An Eighth Amendment challenge comes before the high court." This article
appears in the January 2008 issue of ABA Journal.
"Republicans, Democrats Clash Over Voter-ID Law at Supreme Court":
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report
"A cold-war case of CIA detention still echoes; The Yuri Nosenko affair unveiled US use of extreme isolation to try to 'break' the KGB defector":
Today in The Christian Science Monitor, Warren Richey has an article
that begins, "Behind the debate over the Central Intelligence Agency's destruction of videotapes depicting waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques lies a fundamental question: Can government officials use such aggressive tactics without violating US law? No American court has yet ruled on the legality of Bush administration interrogation policies. But the war on terror isn't the first time US officials have used harsh methods to try to 'break' a detainee."
"Restoring Public Confidence in the Justice Department: Seven Key Steps Attorney General Mukasey Should Take."
Carl Tobias has this essay
online today at FindLaw.