As the Supreme Court nears the midpoint of its annual term and prepares to hear several momentous cases, one question looms: Will the justices' split decision reversing past rulings and allowing new corporate spending in political races set the tone for the term, or will Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission be an exception?

"Is this a turning point?" asks Pamela Harris, director of Georgetown Law's Supreme Court Institute. Harris notes that Chief Justice John Roberts' concurring opinion in the campaign-finance case defended reversing past rulings that have been, as Roberts wrote, "so hotly contested that (they) cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases."

"That is an incredibly muscular vision of when you would overrule precedent," which usually guides justices in new cases, Harris says. "That makes it look like this is a court that's ready to go."

Several pending cases — some that already have been argued, some that will be argued in upcoming weeks — are likely to show the reach of the Roberts Court and its boldness.

Temple University law professor David Kairys expects the Citizens United to distinguish the Roberts Court for years. "I think it will actually define more than this particular term," he says. "It might define the Roberts Court."

Nokia said on Monday it would defend itself vigorously against a class action complaint filed in the United States that claims the firm and its top executives hid some product delays from investors in 2008.

"Nokia has reviewed the allegations contained in the complaint and believes that they are without merit," the company said.

The City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System filed the case on Feb 5 against Nokia Corporation, chief executive Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, then-chief financial officer Rick Simonson and Kai Oistamo, head of Nokia's phone business.

Lawyers in the Proposition 8 trial are keeping an eye on Washington as they draft papers for the federal judge in San Francisco.

The two sides in the legal battle over California's ban on same sex marriage have two more weeks to tell Judge Vaughn Walker exactly how they'd like him to rule and why. As it is expected the federal lawsuit challenging the 2008 ballot initiative to ultimately be decided by the US Supreme court, attorneys are trying to ensure that they've built a case that will satisfy the nation's highest legal authority two years down the line.

The way to get those judges' support, said Boies, is to build as strong a case as possible at the lower level. That's why one of his clients, plaintiff Jeff Zarrillo, feels it's so important to win this trial.

Gov. Bob Riley's gambling task force won another victory Thursday when the Alabama Supreme Court tossed out a court order blocking a raid on the state's largest casino.

In a 7-2 decision, the court said a Macon County judge lacked jurisdiction to halt the pre-dawn raid Jan. 29.

"This is another victory for the rule of law," Gov. Bob Riley said Thursday night.

VictoryLand, 15 miles east of Montgomery, closed its casino Monday night. Shortly before the Supreme Court's ruling came out Thursday, the company closed all other facilities, including its dog track, restaurants and new luxury hotel. The closure was designed to keep the Governor's Task Force on Illegal Gambling from returning without getting a judge to approve a search warrant.

Task force commander John Tyson said last week a search warrant was not needed for the thwarted raid because the casino was open and undercover officers were inside observing the gambling machines. He declined to reveal his next step Thursday night, but said he was reviewing the complete closure of VictoryLand.

Google's latest effort to settle the copyright lawsuit brought against it by The Authors Guild and several publishers in 2005 suffered a setback on Thursday when the U.S. Department of Justice said that copyright and antitrust issues arising from the revised settlement proposal haven't been adequately addressed.

The lawsuit charged that Google's effort to scan and digitize books violates copyright law. Google and the plaintiffs have been trying to reach an agreement that allows Google to make scanned books available in a limited form online and to sell electronic access to digital books with the consent and participation of copyright owners.

The DoJ filed a statement of interest with U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York stating that despite good faith negotiations on the part of the parties involved, "the amended settlement agreement suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement: It is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the court in this litigation."
A hearing on the proposed amended settlement is scheduled for February 18 and the judge is likely to take the DoJ's concerns seriously. The original settlement, presented in October 2008, was shot down after widespread criticism.

Google in a statement said that the DoJ's filing "recognizes the progress made with the revised settlement, and it once again reinforces the value the agreement can provide in unlocking access to millions of books in the U.S."

The company said that it is looking forward to Judge Chin's review of the DoJ filing and that the settlement, if approved will expand online access to published works and provide authors and publishers with new ways to distribute their works.

In a case that could resonate in Washington, the Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the state’s five-year-old medical malpractice law because it limited compensation to injured patients for pain, suffering and other non-economic harms.

The ruling came down as federal proposals to cap malpractice awards are receiving fresh attention on Capitol Hill. Republicans enthusiastically support the limits, and they are seen as a potential vehicle for restarting the stalled health care negotiations in Congress with bipartisan impetus. Neither the House bill that Democrats passed late last year nor its Senate counterpart included significant changes to medical malpractice regulations.

In a 4-to-2 ruling, the Illinois court wrote that the legislature, in enacting the 2005 law, violated the state Constitution’s separation of powers clause by imposing decisions that should be reserved for judges and juries. The law established caps of $500,000 for non-economic damages in verdicts against doctors and $1 million in cases against hospitals.

The decision armed opponents of such provisions with fresh ammunition, and held a particular sting for the American Medical Association, which has its headquarters in Chicago.

Weight Watchers International Inc. settled a lawsuit in which it accused rival Jenny Craig Inc. of running a misleading ad campaign.

“Jenny Craig has permanently agreed to terminate its advertising campaign,” Weight Watchers said today in a statement that didn’t mention money damages. Jenny Craig said it paid no damages or costs and admitted no wrongdoing.

In advertisements featuring the actress Valerie Bertinelli, Jenny Craig falsely claimed that independent clinical trials showed its clients on average lost twice as much as customers on “the largest weight loss program,” New York-based Weight Watchers said last month in a federal court complaint in New York. A judge on Jan. 20 issued a temporary court order blocking the ads.