Links: Feelin' Frisky; Discovery Blues; Troll Tracks

A relatively quiet Monday on the California shores of the, um, great lake o’ blogs.  Or something.  “Blogosphere” is too 2005.  While we work on an alternative, here’s what’s up:

Sacramento attorney Tim Warriner blogs about the California Fifth District ruling that you can’t frisk a kid just ’cause his baggy pants look like a great place to hide a weapon.

The Ninth Circuit Blog’s Case of the Week looks at a Wardlaw ruling, U.S. v Chapman, which, the blog notes, answers the question, “Can an AUSA's reckless disregard for his or her constitutional discovery obligations serve as a basis for a dismissal of an indictment — with prejudice?”  (Spoiler alert:  You betcha.)

Our officemate over at The Prior Art closed last week with a couple solid posts — looking at the in re Bilski arguments and tries to figure out why financial services businesses would support the debated concept of “business method patents.”

The Prior Art also delved into the suit over the Patent Troll Tracker and whether the secretly blogging Cisco attorney deserves, as he asserts, “reporter” status to invoke shield laws against testifying.  Of related interest, copyright expert Neil Netanel is guest-blogging this week at The Volokh Conspiracy, and he launches today with a discussion of online media (including bloggers) versus institutionalized print journalism.

Above the Law welcomes summer associates with a roundup of advice columns.  We welcome comments — any hot legal bloggery we've missed?  Share below...

—  Brian McDonough

Comments

[Jackson]

I was wondering if anyone has any feeling as to the likely outcome in the same-sex marriage case currently before the California supreme court? I have seen conflicting guesses as to the likely outcome. Thanks everyone.

[Scott Graham (Cal Law Editor)]

Jackson, it appeared to us from oral arguments in March that the vote would be very close (see our blog postings from March 4). It appeared to some of us that there might be four votes to strike down a ban as unconstitutional, but that's just a guess. The court must issue its opinion within the next couple of weeks or it will have to resubmit the case, so we should have an answer any day now.