Another federal court has ruled against the auto industry in its attempt to block regulation of greenhouse gas pollution from cars.

The ruling today from U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii in California supports a September decision by a federal judge in Vermont.

Both courts upheld the rights of states to use the federal Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gases from cars.

Steven Hinchman is a lawyer for the Conservation Law Foundation, which intervened in the Vermont case.

Hinchman points out that both the California and Vermont cases followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that affirmed the government's power to regulate global warming pollution.

This is strike three for the automakers. They've now lost in this year alone three different federal cases trying to block regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. When the best scientists in the whole world are saying this is an urgent crisis, and when the governments are responding, it's time for the automakers to quit litigating and start innovating and producing clean cars.

More than a dozen states have followed California's lead and have adopted tough new emissions standards.

Both Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell and Governor Jim Douglas praised the ruling.

They said the California decision upholds the right of states to require aggressive pollution control measures for vehicles.

Politically connected Denver law and lobbying firm Isaacson Rosenbaum has been chosen as outside counsel for the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) as it prepares for next summer's event here.

The firm and one of its top attorneys -- Mark Grueskin, a Democrat and onetime legal counsel and legislative aide to former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm -- will help the committee navigate federal election rules and local laws, working with the DNCC's on-staff general counsel, Susana Carbajal.

"We're kind of a legal defensive secondary," Grueskin said. "We'll watch and see how things develop, and we'll help tackle whatever legal issues require more staffing or a different kind of expertise."

He said Isaacson Rosenbaum has identified 10 areas where the DNCC may need its help before and during the Aug. 25-28 convention, from contract negotiation and employment law to campaign finance rules "and just plain political advice."

One of the firm's key roles will be to help the DNCC comply with Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules covering convention operations, Carbajal said. "Because we receive federal funds, we do have to spend those funds according to the FEC and their regulations," she said.

It's customary for a party to hire a local law firm in the convention host city to help with on-site legal work. The assignment is considered a plum for the chosen firm -- and a sign of close ties between the firm and the party.

"We're awfully proud [to be chosen]," Grueskin said. "It's gratifying that ... they hired us because there are so many different kinds of things that our law firm can do that they might need."

Carbajal -- an attorney for the Austin, Texas, firm of Brown McCarroll and a former aide to President Bill Clinton -- was named DNCC general counsel in April. She said she recommended Isaacson Rosenbaum to her committee after interviewing several local attorneys and firms.

She said she wanted a firm with solid experience in election-finance and public-policy law as well as with good relations with local leaders, and Isaacson Rosenbaum offered both strengths.

"One of the main reasons we chose [the firm] is because of Mark Grueskin. ... He was a driving force in our selection," she said.

California can set its own standards on greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles, a federal judge in Fresno has ruled, The San Jose Mercury News reports. The state still needs permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement the rules.

This is the second time this year that courts have ruled against the auto industry’s bid to stop regulation of tailpipe emissions by states. In September, a court decision in Vermont confirmed that states do have the ability to adopt California’s motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards. Sixteen states comprising about 45 percent of all U.S. auto sales have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, California’s standards. The Vermont decision came on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last April saying the U.S. EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

California has filed a lawsuit against the EPA for failing to act on California’s tailpipe emissions waiver request.

California is the only state that can set its own vehicle pollution standards because it began regulating air pollution before the EPA’s creation. Under the Clean Air Act, however, other states can select either California’s rules or federal ones.

Ellie Rommel was employed as John Duncan’s secretary when he was a partner at the law firm of Verrill Dana. She said she reported what she thought was questionable behavior by Duncan.

Duncan has since been fired from the firm after nearly 30 years.

Rommel told News 8 that she struggled over whether she should tell others what she knew.

"If I had to do it again, I know I would do it,” she said. “But I never dreamt it would be so difficult, so painful."

According to Rommel, she was wrongfully terminated at Verrill Dana after blowing the whistle on Duncan. She said she now plans to file a lawsuit against the firm.

Her attorney also is filing a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission.

A representative of Verrill Dana told News 8 that the firm appreciates Rommel “for bringing the situation to their attention” but added that the facts clearly show that Rommel was not fired.

Moriarty set aside 27.5 percent, or $15.8 million, for plaintiffs' legal fees, as well as an additional $2.2 million for plaintiff expenses.

Sprint Nextel, based in Reston, Va., but with operational headquarters in Overland Park, will pay $10 million of the settlement, with insurers paying the rest. The company has denied any wrongdoing, saying it settled the case to avoid continued legal costs.

Jay Eisenhofer, an attorney representing Dallas-based Carlson Capital LP, one of the lead plaintiffs, said he welcomed the outcome, especially as the case would have been heard in Sprint's hometown.

"The court recognized that Sprint's board did not live up to its fiduciary duties in the way it valued the company's tracking stocks to the detriment of common shareholders," Eisenhofer said.

The case came about after what was then Sprint Corp. decided to combine the two stocks that tracked the fortunes of its wireless and traditional wireline business divisions. Those stocks were divided in 1998 to reflect that the wireless division was just starting to grow and invest in wireless infrastructure while the business overseeing local and long-distance calls generated the bulk of the company's revenue.

By 2004, with most telecommunications companies selling bundles of wireless and land line services, Sprint officials decided to recombine the stocks, exchanging each of the wireless stock shares for half a share of the wireline stock.

Shareholders erupted, with half a dozen filing lawsuits claiming the company had shortchanged the value of the wireless stock and that company officials had manipulated the wireline business to the detriment of the wireless business.

The plaintiffs' attorneys hired experts who estimated the losses to shareholders ranged from $1.3 billion to $3.4 billion.

The settlement covers shareholders whose wireless shares were converted to combined shares on April 23, 2004, or who sold their wireless shares before that date and "were damaged thereby."