That means the main legal event may have to wait until next month, when the city’s unions are expected to file their formal written challenges to Flanders’ bankruptcy filing.

At least one of them, the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 2, indicated in a filing Tuesday that it plans a challenge.

“The order for relief may be entered only upon a determination that the debtor has demonstrated it was eligible to file the petition and that the petition was filed in good faith,” FOP lawyer Diane Finkle argued in her filing. “The debtor herein has yet to establish such eligibility in light of the opposition to its petition.”

Special bankruptcy Judge Frank J. Bailey has set Sept. 16 as the deadline for filing objections to the bankruptcy, along with affidavits to support those arguments.

But that is about two weeks after the time Flanders has said he hopes to have a fiscal reorganization ready for the court to approve. In the meantime, he and the unions continue to negotiate possible out-of-court agreements.

Flanders’ lawyer, Theodore Orson, has said Flanders believes he is acting correctly under the law and expects Bailey to agree. Lawyers for the unions have declined to speculate on how Bailey might rule or how a ruling might be implemented.

This will be a legal challenge that everyone will be paying attention to.

Senate Republicans have permitted several votes in recent days to confirm non-controversial nominees to the federal courts. But they have shown no sign of allowing floor votes on four nominees, including McConnell.

With time running out on the lame-duck legislative session, meanwhile, the majority Democrats have not taken the time-consuming steps needed to force confirmation votes for McConnell and the other controversial nominees.

The Associated Press reported Monday that Republican and Democratic Senate leaders had made an agreement to allow confirmation votes on at least 19 non-controversial nominations to the judiciary –– 10 of whom have already been confirmed without dissent. The offices of Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would not confirm the AP report.

AP, citing unnamed sources, said the Democrats agreed in return not to seek votes on McConnell and three others: Goodwin Liu, a prominent California law school professor nominated to the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and two federal district court prospects, Louis B. Butler Jr. of Wisconsin and Edward Chen of California.

That echoes the situation last summer, when the Senate passed a consensus package of President Obama’s nominations –– including several to the judiciary –– as Congress rushed to its August adjournment. McConnell, Liu, Butler and Chen were excluded from the deal, so their nominations were sent back to the White House. Mr. Obama renominated them in September. If they fail to win Senate confirmation in what time remains of this Congress, the rules require that their nominations again be returned to the president. None of the men can then be considered for the federal bench without being renominated by Mr. Obama –– for a third time –– in the new Congress.

“We are continuing to work on an agreement with Republicans and hope to confirm as many of the president’s nominations as possible before the end of the year,” said Regan Lachapelle, a spokeswoman for Reid. Don Stewart, spokesman for the Republican leader, would not comment on the AP report.

The fact that Republican Senators are publicly threatening to filibuster a District Court nominee and that Democratic Senators can’t deliver this nominee while controlling huge majorities of both houses of Congress for the last two years is tragic in more ways than one.

Joe was a tremendous community leader, legal mind and generous human being.  The state and the nation mourn the loss of such a young and promising leader.

The Providence Journal had this:

President Obama on Sunday joined in mourning the death of Joseph M. Fernandez, the former Providence city solicitor and unsuccessful candidate for attorney general.

“I was shocked and saddened to learn today of the passing of my friend and colleague Joe Fernandez,” Obama said in a statement.

Fernandez, who was 46, died Saturday at Miriam Hospital after a short illness.

“From our time together in law school to his work as a dedicated public servant in Providence, I knew Joe as someone who had lived the American dream and was committed to protecting it for his fellow citizens,” the President said.

“He will be deeply missed. My thoughts and prayers are with Joe’s wife, Emily, and two young daughters in these most trying of times.”

In addition to being Obama’s law school classmate, Fernandez had served at co-chair of Obama’s presidential campaign in Rhode Island.

Services will be held at 11 a.m. on Thursday morning, December 23, at Central Congregational Church in Providence.

Calling hours will be held from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Wednesday evening, December 22, at Monahan Drabble Sherman, 230 Waterman Street, Providence (Wayland Square).

Donations may be made to The Coco and Phoebe College Fund, c/o 286 Doyle Ave, Providence, RI 02906.

The estate of the deceased Marie Evans and her son, who filed a wrongful death suit in 2004, won a combined $71 million award.

In videotaped depositions, Marie Evans “testified that Lorillard representatives drove around the Orchard Park apartments in a white box truck-similar to an ice cream truck-passing out Newports to her and other children.”

The jury found Lorillard “negligent in marketing Newports to children such as Evans and failing to warn her of the health risks.”

The Globe adds, “The verdict sets up a second phase of deliberations in which the jury could also award Evans’s estate and family punitive damages, which often are a multiple of the amounts awarded in the compensatory phase.”

The court wrote the following regarding Duffy, Sweeney and Scott’s appeal:

In view of the legitimate concerns and hardships raised by D&S, we believe that the hearing justice placed too much emphasis on maintaining the trial date, overstated the adverse impact on the clients, and did not adequately consider the unreasonable financial burden that would befall D&S.

For the reasons stated above, the Superior Court order on February 6, 2009, denying counsel’s motion to withdraw, is reversed. This case is remanded to the trial court for the entry of an order granting the motion to withdraw.

The RI Bar Association and the RI Association for Justice filed amicus briefs in support of the appellant in this matter.

A federal judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional, becoming the first judge to invalidate any part of the sprawling act and ensuring that appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from below.

The judge, Henry E. Hudson of Federal District Court in Richmond, said the law’s requirement that most Americans obtain insurance exceeded the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause.

(…)

In a 42-page opinion, Judge Hudson wrote: “Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”

Allowing Congress to exert such authority, he said, “would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”

Compelling vehicle owners to carry accident insurance, as states do, is considered a different matter because the Constitution gives the states broad police powers that have been interpreted to encompass that. Furthermore, there is no statutory requirement that people possess cars, only a requirement that they have insurance as a condition of doing so. By contrast, the plaintiffs in the health care case argue that the new law requires people to obtain health insurance simply because they exist.

The insurance mandate is central to the law’s mission of covering more than 30 million people who are uninsured. Insurers argue that only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to pay for those with expensive conditions. But Judge Hudson ruled that many of the law’s other provisions could be severed legally and would survive even if the mandate is invalidated.

Judge Hudson is the third district court judge to reach a determination on the merits in one of the two dozen lawsuits challenging the health care law. The other judges, in Detroit and Lynchburg, Va., have upheld the law. Lawyers say the appellate process could last another two years before the Supreme Court settles the dispute.

The opinion by Judge Hudson, who has a long history in Republican politics in Northern Virginia, continued a partisan pattern in the health care cases. Thus far, judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled consistently against the Obama administration, while Democratic appointees have found for it.

The defendants purchased a three-unit investment rental property on July 18, 2005. At the time, defendant No. 1 was a town building official and defendant No. 2 was the town planner, a job he retains today.

They leased a first-floor, two-bedroom apartment to the plaintiff, a longtime self-employed plasterer, in January 2006, although a certificate of occupancy was not issued until four months later.

The plaintiff reported to the defendants that leaks were coming through the ceiling in early 2006. The defendants traced the leaks to the roof and then attempted to make temporary repairs using a liquid tar product. They performed the repair in late January, but did not properly follow the instructions on the product.

On July 3, the plaintiff unlocked his door and began to enter the unit through the rear entrance. When he stepped onto the linoleum floor, he slipped and fell, fracturing his left wrist while trying to brace his fall.

Immediately after the fall, he noticed that there was a puddle on the kitchen floor caused by a leak in the ceiling above.

Within a few weeks of the injury, the defendants hired a contractor and replaced the roof.

The plaintiff underwent surgery in February 2007 to his left wrist, his dominant hand. A plate and several pins were placed, and he was rendered unable to work.

The jury returned a verdict of $300,000, attributing 20-percent negligence to the plaintiff.

Action: Premises liability

Injuries alleged: Fracture, nerve damage

Name of case: Scorpio v. Goff, et al.

Court/case no.: Providence County Superior Court, No. 07-4130

Jury and/or judge: Jury/Susan E. McGuirl

Amount: $240,000

Date: Nov. 4, 2010

Attorneys: Jeffrey A. Mega and Matthew T. Jerzyk, Deluca & Weizenbaum, Providence (for the plaintiff)