Supreme Court U S Rulings

Amway Corp. lost a Supreme Court appeal Monday in its six-year fight with rival Procter & Gamble Co. over rumors that P&G was linked to devil worship. The court declined to review a lower court's decision that rumors spread to hurt a company are not entitled to free-speech protection. The case grew from P&G's allegation that Amway and a group of Amway distributors spread an old, baseless story about P&G and Satanism.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that federal drug laws prohibit distribution of marijuana may be just what the doctor ordered for California insurance companies sick of paying claims on lost, stolen or confiscated pot. People legally using marijuana for medicinal purposes in California have been able to file claims with their insurance companies for payments when their pot was lost, stolen or confiscated by police.

On an unusual 3-3 vote, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to halt the execution of a Texas man who, as a teenager, shot and killed the father of a prominent Virginia judge. Three members of the high court recused themselves from the case because they are friends of the victim's son. Three other justices voted to halt the execution and hear the appeal, while the remaining three voted to let it proceed. Under the rules, it takes a majority of participating justices to halt an execution.

With the help of the U.S. Supreme Court, freelance writers have successfully wrestled the New York Times and other publishers to the mat, forcing them either to pay up for past work or to delete it from online archives. But if freelance writers now have powerful publishers in a literary half-Nelson, it is the unassuming news librarians who are taking a chair to the head. Now that the Constitution has been safeguarded and lofty copyright principles upheld anew, the real work begins.

In a landmark in the legal assault on tobacco, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday for the first time upheld a jury verdict in a damage suit brought by a smoker against a cigarette company. The high court, without comment, declined to review a Florida Supreme Court decision upholding a $750,000 judgment rendered against Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. by a Jacksonville state court jury in 1996. Friday's action was quite significant, according to industry analysts and anti-smoking advocates.

The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday on tobacco advertising might not affect a Los Angeles law aimed at eliminating tobacco and alcohol ads from billboards and other signs. But the local law has never been enforced for other reasons. The court said Massachusetts cannot ban tobacco ads near playgrounds and schools. But Councilman Mike Feuer, who wrote the Los Angeles ordinance, said it may survive the decision.

The Supreme Court on Thursday strengthened the rights of property owners to challenge regulators who block them from building on their land. Even if long-standing regulations forbid development, such as in a wetlands area, new owners can still go to court and sue for compensation if their development plans are denied, the justices ruled. Landowners "have a right to challenge unreasonable limitations on the use and value of land," Justice Anthony M.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the federal government cannot indefinitely imprison immigrant criminals who cannot be deported because their native lands--such as Cuba, Cambodia and spinoffs of the former Soviet Union--will not take them back. The 5-4 ruling marked the second time this week that the court, by a one-vote margin, handed a significant victory to the rights of immigrants--in both instances, to noncitizens who had committed crimes and served their time.

The Supreme Court gave the tobacco industry a major victory Thursday, ruling that states and localities may not ban the outdoor advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products at retail stores or near schools and playgrounds. The 5-4 ruling knocks down Massachusetts' restrictions, and apparently invalidates local ordinances in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and at least a dozen other California cities as well.

The state Supreme Court on Thursday overturned an agency's bid to remove a house from a bluff overlooking the spectacular Columbia River Gorge. Brian and Jody Bea won approval in 1996 from Skamania County to build on property his family had owned for generations. The county approved a permit that included conditions designed to protect the scenic value of the area, and the Beas began to build.