Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

Litigation

: How Appealing

"U.S. appeals court: Return MLB players' drug-test records; Panel says data from confidential tests of baseball players was improperly seized."

"U.S. appeals court: Return MLB players' drug-test records; Panel says data from confidential tests of baseball players was improperly seized." Maura Dolan and Lance Pugmire had this article Thursday in The Los Angeles Times.

In Thursday's edition of The San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz had an article headlined "Appeals court bars feds from using pro baseball players' steroids test results."

Thursday's edition of The San Francisco Chronicle reported that "Feds improperly seized players' steroid records."

Thursday's edition of The New York Times reported that "Court Rules U.S. Seized 2003 Tests Improperly."

And The Associated Press had articles headlined "Court: Investigators wrong to seize MLB drug list" and "Court ruling small consolation for exposed players," along with a column entitled "Hard to feel bad for outed players from 'The List.'"

You can access Wednesday's ruling of an eleven-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

My coverage of the original three-judge panel's ruling, which issued in December 2006, can be accessed here and here.

In other coverage of this week's ruling, at Wired.com's "Threat Level" blog, David Kravets has a post titled "Court's Steroid Ruling Pumps Up Computer Privacy."

At "The Volokh Conspiracy," law professor Orin Kerr has a series of posts largely critical of the en banc ruling.

And WSJ.com's "Law Blog" has a post titled "Beyond A-Rod and ManRam: Plain Talk on the 'Plain View Doctrine.'"

Full post as published by How Appealing on August 29, 2009 (boomark / email).