The high court's decision to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction occurred as part of a long-running legal battle over California's 33 adult prisons and their often-criticized medical care for inmates.

A panel of three federal judges in August ordered the state's prison population be reduced in stages over two years to relieve the overcrowding that has caused inadequate medical and mental health care.

California's prisons have been filled to nearly twice their designed capacity of 80,000, according to the ruling.

The Supreme Court noted the state has come up with a plan to comply with the lower court's order but the three-judge panel earlier this month put it on hold pending the outcome of the appeals to the high court. With the appeals dismissed, the plan can go forward.

Improving conditions in the nation's largest state prison system has become a major legal, political and budget issue in view of California's budget crisis and high unemployment.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out a court ruling that invalidated a former Black Panther's death sentence for killing a Philadelphia police officer in 1981.

The move was the latest twist in Mumia Abu-Jamal's racially tinged case that has drawn international attention.

The justices ordered the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to take another look at Abu-Jamal's claim that the jury weighing his punishment was given flawed instructions.

The high court acted on Pennsylvania's appeal of the 3rd Circuit ruling following a decision last week in a capital case from Ohio that turned on a similar issue. The 3rd Circuit could order a federal trial court to consider Abu-Jamal's case anew, including other claims he has raised that have yet to be decided.

A Philadelphia jury convicted Abu-Jamal of killing white Philadelphia police Officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981 after the patrolman pulled over Abu-Jamal's brother in an overnight traffic stop.

The Supreme Court has again reinstated the conviction of a California woman for shaking her 7-week-old grandson in a case that has become a tug-of-war with the federal appeals court in San Francisco.

Shirley Ree Smith was convicted in December 1997 and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.

After California appeals courts ruled against Smith, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction in 2006. The appellate judges said they found "no demonstrable support" for the prosecution's theory of the case. Prosecutors said that Smith lost her temper when Etzel Dean Glass III began to cry and shook him to death.

In 2007, the high court ordered the 9th Circuit to reconsider its decision based on a recent Supreme Court ruling. In that case, the justices overturned another ruling by the appeals court that was favorable to a convicted killer.

Missouri's top judges questioned on Thursday whether a 2005 law limiting medical malpractice lawsuits is being wrongly applied to people retroactively and is discriminating against the spouses of those injured.

Attorneys for patients argued to the state Supreme Court that the law violates numerous provisions of the Missouri Constitution and that lawmakers had no rational basis to reduce the amount of money that people who had been harmed could win from medical providers.

The law was a priority of the Republican-led Legislature and then-Gov. Matt Blunt. They claimed "tort reform" was essential to curtail rising liability insurance premiums for doctors and to ensure that health care was available and affordable for Missouri residents.

A main change in the 2005 law lowered the cap for non-economic damages such as pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases to a flat $350,000 per lawsuit. Missouri's previous limit of $579,000 had been adjusted annually for inflation and had been interpreted by courts to apply to multiple parties in a lawsuit.

A Massachusetts law that sharply restricts out-of-state winemakers from shipping their products directly to consumers in the state is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled.

Thursday's decision by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court ruling could open the door for connoisseurs in Massachusetts to purchase more of their favorite wines online or by mail order from domestic producers.

The law, approved by the Legislature in 2006 over the veto of then-Gov. Mitt Romney, created a multi-tiered system in which wineries that produce more than 30,000 gallons a year must decide whether to sell retail in Massachusetts through an in-state wholesaler or apply for a license to ship wines directly to consumers. They cannot, however, do both.

The cap does not affect any of the nearly three dozen wineries based in Massachusetts, all of which are small and produce under the 30,000-gallon limit.

"We hold that (the law) violates the Commerce Clause because the effect of its particular gallonage cap is to change the competitive balance between in-state and out-of-state wineries in a way that benefits Massachusetts's wineries and significantly burdens out-of-state competitors," the appellate court wrote in its decision.

As Delaware's first season of sports betting winds down, Governor Jack Markell says the state will challenge the federal Appeals Court ruling that limited the Delaware to offering parlay bets on NFL games.  Governor Markell's office confirms the First State will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in August that shot down Delaware's plan to offer single game betting on all sports.

The state has retained the Washington D.C. firm of Sidley Austin to handle the appeal.  That firm specializes in Supreme Court work.

The decision to move forward is based in part on the willingness of the state's three racinos, Delaware Park, Dover Downs, and Harrington Raceway, to foot the bill for the appeal.  The three racinos are currently the only venues that can offer sports betting in Delaware.

Governor Markell's spokesman, Brian Selander, says the state will offer some new arguments in its appeal.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Delaware's plan to offer single game bets on all sports in late August, siding with the NFL, NCAA, and other pro leagues who challenged Delaware.  The Court ruled Delaware's sports betting plan violated the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which prohibits sports betting.  Delaware is one of four states with an exemption to PASPA, since it previously offered NFL parlay bets, but a three judge Third Circuit panel ruled narrowly that Delaware's exemption is limited to the same NFL parlay bets it offered back in 1976.

The Florida Bar is investigating at least 35 former senior lawyers in the now-bankrupt Fort Lauderdale law firm headed by Scott Rothstein, who was disbarred before he was criminally charged last month with using the firm to run a $1.2 billion investment racket.

The Bar confirmed to The Miami Herald Wednesday that it is examining whether those members of the former firm -- Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler -- lied about the amount of money in client trust accounts and whether they stole any of it.

Rothstein is scheduled to plead guilty Jan. 27 to federal racketeering, fraud and money laundering charges stemming from his massive Ponzi scheme, which was fueled with plundered client and investor funds.

Several of Rothstein's former partners have said they were unware of his scam, in which he used the law firm to sell bogus legal settlements to wealthy investors over the past four years.

But prosecutors, without mentioning names, have said that some of the law firm's employees ``do have apparent criminal culpability.''

The Florida Bar board of governors and its president, Jesse Diner, launched their investigation into Rothstein in early November when word of the scandal broke, and then the following month decided to pursue the probe of the other lawyers.

``The Bar takes this issue very seriously,'' Diner, a Fort Lauderdale lawyer, said Wednesday. ``The Bar is actively investigating and will pursue remedies against anyone who has violated any rules. This investigation didn't stop with Scott Rothstein.