Welcome to your Thursday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)
The top story on a busy news day is the state Supreme Court sounding off on the gaming licensing process. As reporter Gina Passarella writes, the justices took an opportunity during oral argument in an appeal of a Category 3 slots license to challenge the state Gaming Control Board on transparency issues the jurists admitted were not before them. As Justice Seamus P. McCaffery said, “This court has been criticized as a quote-unquote ‘rubber stamp’ for the Gaming Board.”
Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the justices mulled the topic of expert testimony about eyewitnesses while hearing oral argument yesterday. The state Supreme Court is being asked to allow trial courts to permit expert scientific testimony on human memory and perception in criminal cases involving eyewitnesses.
Below the fold on Page 1, Gina Passarella writes that the distribution of fliers at an elementary school inviting classmates to a Christmas party at her church are protected by the Tinker standard. U.S. District Court Judge A. Richard Caputo of the Middle District of Pennsylvania upheld his initial decision in K.A. v. Pocono Mountain School District following the school district’s motion for reconsideration. The suit alleged the school district violated K.A.’s First and 14th Amendment rights by prohibiting her from passing out the fliers.
In more Regional News on Page 3, John Caher of Legal affiliate New York Law Journal writes that a judge has tossed a breach of contract suit against the artist who created the “LOVE” sculpture in Philadelphia’s Love Park.
As it is Thursday, this week’s Young Lawyer column is on Page 5, as David Koller writes about dealing with the legal profession’s “terrible triad” - the sigh, eye roll and face rub that he sees so often from more senior lawyers.
In a commentary on Page 7, Scott A. Coffina writes about the Stock Act and a legislative battle that has developed in Congress in an attempt to close an egregious loophole that has allowed members to profit from stock trades motivated by inside information about pending legislation.
If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.