In its 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Court of Appeals decisions that said the residents had the legal standing to sue the company over how its water withdrawals might affect the Dead Stream and Thompson Lake.

But it disagreed with the lower court's ruling that the residents also had the legal standing to sue over a nearby lake -- Osprey Lake Impoundment -- and three wetlands, saying residents didn't prove they used those areas.

Justice Marilyn Kelly criticized the majority's decision, writing in her dissent that "it extinguishes a valid cause of action for no reason other than its belief that the cause of action granted by the Legislature is too broad."

A Nestle spokeswoman said the court simply was being consistent with an earlier ruling that limited the law's scope.

But David Holtz, director of Clean Water Action Michigan, said the court's ruling makes it even more important to pass legislation protecting Michigan's waters. A package of bills was introduced this week in the state House to strengthen a permit system for water withdrawals.

Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of Greenfield Online Inc. ("Greenfield Online" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SRVY) from February 9, 2005 and September 30, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The litigation seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1934. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of Greenfield Online.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased this stock during the above referenced class period you have certain rights. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you want to discuss your legal rights, you may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. You may contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by e-mail at clients@brodsky-smith.com, or by calling toll free 877-LEGAL-90.

Kilpatrick Stockton LLP said a Georgia court ruled PepsiCo Inc.'s (PEP) "bag- in-box" technology doesn't infringe on a Coca-Cola Co. (KO) patent.

The suit was over a type of container Purchase, N.Y., PepsiCo had been using to distribute and dispense fountain syrup, which Atlanta-based Coca-Cola said infringed on its patent.

The law firm representing PepsiCo said the action had been pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for about two years. The firm moved for summary judgment, arguing that the judge's interpretation of the patent in a prior case precluded a finding of infringement in this case.

The judge, Richard W. Story, granted the motion and dismissed the case.

Coca-Cola wasn't immediately available for comment.

Rubin, who’s representing himself at his drug trial, says members of his Temple 420 believe that marijuana is the tree of life mentioned in the Bible.

Though ordained in 1990 by the Universal Life Church, police and prosecutors describe Rubin as a drug dealer. He faces up to seven years in prison if convicted of possessing marijuana for sale.

The 41-year-old Rubin has no legal experience, and says he spent last weekend praying and smoking marijuana with Indians in a sweat lodge at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.

Judge Shira Scheindlin said that granting class action status was the only way to stop the state-wide enforcement of an anti-begging law that was ruled unconstitutional in 1992, but since then has been used in over 10,000 arrests and prosecutions across the entire state.

"We're looking forward to putting an end to this practice," said Matthew Brinckerhoff, the beggars' lawyer.

The city lawyers had contended that the plaintiffs were unfit to represent such a large group in a class action suit, due to mental illness and drug addiction.

A court has ruled that the government of California is within its rights to prohibit Adidas from selling kangaroo-hide soccer shoes in the state.

U.S. law does not pre-empt a state law banning importation and sale of kangaroo products in California, the California State Supreme Court ruled Monday. It reversed two lower-court decisions that sided with Adidas's argument that the California law could not foreclose U.S. provisions that allow the use of the Australian kangaroo hides.

Adidas recently began one of its largest U.S. advertising campaigns. The promotions feature David Beckham, who recently joined the Los Angeles Galaxy soccer team.

"Although Adidas makes some shoes using kangaroo leather, a common practice in our industry, Adidas does not make shoes from any endangered or threatened kangaroo species," a company spokeswoman, Andrea Corso, said in a statement. "We are confident that we will prevail in this matter."

Beckham's soccer shoe is made with a synthetic leather upper, Corso said.

The United States lifted a ban in 1981 on imports of leather from the three kangaroo species that Adidas uses for the shoes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1995 took those species off its endangered or threatened species list, effectively ending the U.S. government's involvement in the matter, the California court said.

The case was brought by Viva, the Vegetarian International Voice for Animals. The California Supreme Court sent the case back to the appeals court to decide whether Viva had standing to bring the case under California law and whether the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibited California from trying to regulate kangaroo imports, said an Adidas lawyer, Martin Fineman.