Supreme Court Notebook

Court won’t hear appeal from La. death row inmate
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won’t hear a second appeal from a man sentenced to death for killing a Louisiana businessman in 2002.

The high court refused to hear an appeal from Jesse Jay Montejo.

The court ruled last year Montejo could not complain that police interacted with him outside of the presence of his lawyer because he never verbally accepted the assistance of his court-appointed lawyer.

But the justices sent Montejo’s case back to Louisiana for judges to determine whether any of Montejo’s other court-provided protections, like his Miranda rights, were violated. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled none of his other rights were violated.

Montejo wanted the Supreme Court to overturn that decision.

The case is Montejo v. Louisiana, 10-416.

Court to review Ariz. campaign finance law
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will consider reversing an Arizona rule that gives extra money to publicly funded candidates who face privately funded rivals.

The court already blocked the state in June from handing out so-called matching funds in the recent election. The justices agreed Monday to hear an appeal from opponents who say the money violates free speech rights under the First Amendment.

Court won’t review eBay win in Tiffany lawsuit
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won’t overturn a ruling that says eBay isn’t violating Tiffany’s trademarks by selling items on its website that might be counterfeit.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Tiffany Inc.

Tiffany sued eBay in 2004, saying eBay engaged in trademark infringement and dilution because most items that sellers list for sale as genuine Tiffany silver jewelry on its sites were fakes.

But the lower courts said eBay took down listings when Tiffany informed the company that the materials were counterfeit. The judges said eBay cannot be held responsible for counterfeits being sold on its site if the website doesn’t know the items are fake.

Tiffany wanted the Supreme Court to reconsider that ruling.

The case is Tiffany Inc. v. eBay Inc., 10-300.

High court won’t wade into Florida water dispute
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won’t force Florida water managers to get permits to pump contaminated water from farmland into Lake Okeechobee.

The high court refused to hear an appeal from the Friends of the Everglades, the Florida Wildlife Federation and other groups.

The 11th U.S. Court of Appeals had agreed with the Environmental Protection Agency that transferring polluted water from one navigable body to another does not require a permit.

A federal judge in 2006 had said the pumping constituted a “discharge of a pollutant” under the Clean Water Act and required the South Florida Water Management District to get a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit.

The case is Friends of the Everglades v. South Florida Water Management District, 10-196.

Court to review patent judgment against Microsoft
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will review a $290 million judgment against Microsoft Corp. for infringing on a Canadian technology company’s patent.

The high court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from the Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft.

Toronto-based i4i sued Microsoft in 2007, saying it owned the technology behind a tool used in Microsoft Word.

The lower courts say Microsoft willfully infringed on the patent, and ordered Microsoft to pay i4i $290 million and stop selling versions of Word containing the infringing technology.

Supreme Court rejects appeal on Va. alcohol ad ban
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is leaving in place a ban on alcohol advertising in Virginia’s college newspapers.

The court on Monday rejected an appeal filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the newspapers. The appeal argued that the ban is an unconstitutional restraint on speech.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., upheld the regulation by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission that prohibits advertising of beer, wine and mixed drinks in college student publications unless in advertisements for dining establishments. It also bans the phrase “happy hour” and references to specific mixed drinks.

The case is Educational Media Company v. Swecker, 10-278.