"We are extremely gratified by the jury's verdict, as we have always believed that the plaintiffs' claims were without merit," said Kevin Kennedy, JDSU's President and Chief Executive Officer. "We will continue focusing our full attention on developing innovative products and delivering on the significant potential of our business model to create shareholder value."

The Company noted that while the jury's decision in this case is a significant positive milestone, it continues to defend itself in the securities class action and related litigation.

LaRue, who used to work at a management consulting firm, is among the 42 million workers who contributed to a 401(k) retirement plan. At issue in LaRue's case are the limits to lawsuits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. It regulates private-sector retirement plans holding over $5.5 trillion in assets, including $2 trillion in an estimated quarter of a million 401(k) plans across the country.

Unlike traditional pension plans, participants in 401(k) plans — named after a section in tax law — do not know how much money they will receive in retirement. It depends on how well their chosen investments have performed.

ERISA was designed to safeguard pension fund money from misappropriation. The 1974 law followed the failure of some companies to pay promised pensions and extensive looting of some pension and welfare funds at companies and labor unions.

Class-action suits filed under the law over the past decade have targeted Enron, WorldCom and other major companies tainted by scandal.

From a legal standpoint, it is less clear what action an individual account holder can take against a retirement plan when the conduct at issue is less than criminal.

LaRue says that in 2000 and 2001 he requested changes in his investment allocations in mutual funds that were available to participants in his company's 401(k) plan. He says the requests were not honored.

"I wanted to sell stocks and move to cash because I thought the market would head down. I was right," LaRue said in a telephone interview. "I didn't find out that the plan had not executed my transactions until 10 months later. They had a substandard reporting system. I left the firm. I asked them again to make the change, and they still didn't do it. I don't know why."

The Bush administration, siding with LaRue, says an appeals court ruling against him would leave participants in "the most common form of pension plan who have been injured by a breach of fiduciary duty without a meaningful remedy from any court."

LaRue sued in 2004, saying he had tried to avoid going to court and instead sought to reach a settlement with his former employers. He was unsuccessful, as it turned out.

"We had already been through one lawsuit over stock in the company, which I won," said LaRue. "Even though I prevailed, it was not pleasant. I didn't want to go through it again."

Business groups assign a different motive to the long delay in filing the second suit, saying LaRue was waiting to see how the market performed. If the value of his investment went up, he made money. If it went down, he would head to court.

LaRue, according to the American Council of Life Insurers, was "squarely in the proverbial catbird seat. ... He could not lose. ... Granting LaRue relief in this case would encourage other plan participants to do the same."

In papers in the case, the council said denying LaRue the right to sue for damages would ensure that a plan participant who claims his investment directions were not followed would act promptly, seeking a court order if necessary.

When ERISA was passed, decisions on where to invest money were out of workers' hands. Under 401(k) and other types of plans, employees make the choice.

"If they're going to shift the responsibility for a plan from a company to the individual, then they should listen to our instructions," LaRue said.

ERISA pre-empts state laws relating to employee benefit plans, meaning LaRue cannot use them to sue, and therein lies his problem.

Besides protecting workers, ERISA was aimed at encouraging employers to set up retirement plans and in doing so, Congress limited the right to sue. Just where the line is drawn is the question in LaRue's suit, though the Supreme Court in past decisions on ERISA has drawn the line in favor of employers.

The business world says allowing cases like LaRue's could lead to a wave of suits without merit.

"There is a cost associated with any expansion of remedies," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a filing in the Supreme Court supporting LaRue's former employer.

Opening up plan administrators to liability will increase the cost of running ERISA plans, result in fewer being established or reduce the level of benefits, the business group says.

The case is LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates Inc; and DeWolff, Boberg & Associates Inc., Employees' Savings Plan, 06-856.

Failure to submit to the searches, which can last an hour, disqualifies applicants from assistance.

The 10-year-old program was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of six single parents who were seeking assistance. The welfare applicants argued that the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, protects them from the home visits.

"When the investigator conducts the home inspection, no part of the home is off-limits," they said.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding the program, said the Supreme Court in 1971 allowed social workers to visit homes in New York to determine eligibility. The appeals court, in a 2-1 decision, said the visits do not even constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment in part because people are free to turn away the investigators.

In dissent, however, Judge Raymond Fisher said it was unlawful for an investigator from the district attorney's office to go "walking through the applicant's home in search of physical evidence of ineligibility that could lead to criminal prosecution either for welfare fraud or other crimes unrelated to the welfare application."

The local government said the high court should not step in.

"No applicant has been prosecuted for welfare fraud based upon anything observed or discovered during a home visit that contradicted information provided by the applicant," the county said in its brief for the Supreme Court.

Eight appeals court judges voted to have the full San Francisco-based court hear the case. Seven of those judges called the program "an attack on the poor."

Teen Ranch denies that it forced the young people to attend religious services, saying that it offers alternatives such as academic study time, writing letters home and recreational time in a gymnasium.

In asking the justices to take the case, lawyers for Teen Ranch say the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati incorrectly expanded a 2003 Supreme Court ruling to cover Teen Ranch. In the 4-year-old ruling, the Supreme Court barred state scholarships for students studying to enter the clergy.

The appeals court decision enables bureaucrats "to discriminate against religious organizations at will," lawyers for Teen Ranch said in asking the justices to take the case.

Viacom's lawyers said in court papers that the company dropped the M2 name in 1999 and called the channel "MTV2."

M2 Software, however, continued to press for monetary damages and a cut of Viacom's profits attributable to the trademark infringement, as allowed by federal law.

A federal district court in 2004 accepted a compromise proposal from Viacom and issued an injunction barring Viacom from using M2 or "M2: Music Television" in the future.

But the district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that M2 Software wasn't entitled to damages or a portion of Viacom's profits because it hadn't shown that the infringement was intentional.

M2 Software appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that federal law does not always require that trademark infringment be intentional for a trademark holder to seek a portion of profits.

The Supreme Court's decision lets stand the appeals court's ruling.