A federal court in Illinois had dismissed the lawsuit, concluding the allegations were too vague and did not raise a "strong inference" that the company intended to deceive shareholders.

The "strong inference" requirement was laid out in a law adopted by Congress in 1995 designed to discourage frivolous securities fraud suits by making it easier for companies to get them thrown out of court.

The Tellabs lawsuit was subsequently reinstated by a U.S. appeals court. The Supreme Court, by an 8-1 vote, ruled the appeals court was wrong, with the majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

She said that to qualify as strong, an inference must be more than merely plausible or reasonable. It must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent, Justice Ginsburg said.

Tellabs had argued that under the 1995 reform law, federal courts must consider any facts that suggest any possible "innocent" motives, and that courts have to dismiss securities fraud cases that don't raise a "strong inference" of intentional wrongdoing.

Tellabs was supported by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department.

Lawyers for the investor plaintiffs had argued that their lawsuit laid out enough specific facts to show that Tellabs knew its best-selling product, a piece of networking equipment known as a cross-connect system, was in decline, but misled investors anyway.

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying he thought it clear that the plaintiffs established probable cause to believe that Mr. Notebaert acted with the required intent.

Ohio State basketball player David Lighty pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge and was fined $250 in a case involving a jogger who was shot with a BB gun last year.

Two of Lighty’s former teammates at Villa Angela-St. Joseph High School in Cleveland also entered pleas in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas on Tuesday.

Jimmy McLeod and Darryl Rushton each were fined $100 after pleading guilty to disorderly conduct, a minor misdemeanor.

James Nugent, 55, was not seriously hurt last June when he was hit in the back by at least one plastic BB while jogging on the VASJ track. In Cleveland, BB and pellet guns are considered firearms and it is illegal to have them in public places.

Nugent said Tuesday that he had forgiven the 19-year-old defendants and thought the sentences handed down by Judge Kenneth Callahan were fair.

After he was sentenced, Lighty shook Nugent’s hand. Lighty told the judge he wanted to apologize “to Mr. Nugent, to my family, my community and my school.”

Lighty, a 6-foot-5 guard-forward, started seven games last season as the Buckeyes set a school record for victories with a 35-4 record. He was at his best as a defensive specialist who hit some big shots during Ohio State’s run to the national championship game, where the Buckeyes lost to defending champion Florida.

The case deals with alleged industry misconduct during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s.

The outcome of the antitrust case was vital to Wall Street because damages in antitrust cases are tripled, in contrast to penalties under the securities laws.

The question was whether conduct that is the focus of extensive federal regulation under securities laws is immune from liability under federal antitrust laws.

An antitrust action raises "a substantial risk of injury to the securities market," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote. He said there is "a serious conflict" between applying antitrust law to the case and proper enforcement of the securities law.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the securities laws contain language that preserves the right to bring the kind of lawsuit investors filed against the Wall Street investment banks.

In 2005, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the conduct alleged in the case is a means of "dangerous manipulation" and that there is no indication Congress contemplated repealing the antitrust laws to protect it.

Investors allege that the investment banks, including Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, agreed to impose illegal tie-ins, or "laddering" arrangements. Favored customers were able to obtain highly sought-after new stock issues in exchange for promises to make subsequent purchases at escalating prices. The investment banks allegedly conspired to levy additional charges for the stock.

As a result of the conspiracy, the investors say, the average price increase on the first day of trading was more than 70 percent in 1999-2000, 8 1/2 times the level from 1981 to 1996.

Private class-action lawsuits, say plaintiffs' attorneys, provide a significant supplement to the limited resources available to the Justice Department to enforce the antitrust laws.

Lawyers for Wall Street investment banks say it is a highly technical matter where the line is drawn between legal and illegal activity in the sale of newly issued stock. It must be left to highly trained securities regulators to decide, rather than to courtroom juries in antitrust lawsuits brought by investors, the industry says.

The Supreme Court concluded that "antitrust courts are likely to make unusually serious mistakes" that hurt defendants. As a result, investment banks must avoid "a wide range of joint conduct that the securities law permits or encourages."

In other action, the court also added one case to its calendar for next term. It will consider whether an investor in a large 401k retirement plan can sue to recover losses to his individual account that are the fault of the plan's manager.

Other Wall Street institutions in the case before the Supreme Court were Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Comerica Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Fidelity Distributors Corp.; Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC; Fidelity Investments Institutional Services Co. Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.; Janus Capital Management LLC; Lehman Brothers Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.; Robertson Stephens Inc.; Van Wagoner Capital Management Inc.; and Van Wagoner Funds Inc.

A former Democratic political boss in East St. Louis is facing at least 15 more months in federal prison on environmental infractions -- on top of the 21 months he's already serving in a vote-fraud scheme.

Charles Powell Junior has pleaded guilty in US District Court in East St. Louis to a conspiracy charge and a charge of failing to notify authorities before removing asbestos.

Powell admitted he had been hired to renovate the Spivey Building in East St. Louis and that he had hired another man.

According to court documents, both men knew the building contained asbestos but improperly removed and disposed of asbestos-covered pipes and other asbestos-containing material in 2002. Powell once headed East St. Louis' Democratic Party.

With the media's lenses focused on Durham, Shah is glad the case has drawn to a close. "I think the community feels more annoyance than excitement with all the media attention," he said.

Setrakian was there when the media descended upon Durham. She said, at times, the city couldn't accommodate the media mob.

"Satellite trucks would line the streets and hotel rooms would sell out as a swarm of national media came to cover the case," she said.

Now that District Attorney Mike Nifong has been disbarred, the media may be on its way out. Shah said, from what he's seen, the media has moved on.

But not everyone thinks this story will disappear. Former North Carolina Attorney General Rufus Edmisten thinks the story will linger because the judge in the case still has jurisdiction to hold Nifong in contempt of court if interested parties pursue those charges. Edmisten says people are still tuning into the story because, although the legal community is satisfied with Nifong's disbarment, the larger Durham community does not feel a sense of closure.

Despite interest in the story, it looks like the media parade is leaving. "The high intensity moments are over," Setrakian said. Edmisten said the chairman of the hearing in the case referred to the events as a dangerous soap opera.

So, while further legal movement in the case may be in store, at least for the residents of Durham, this show is fading to black.

When Jillian T. Weiss made the change from male to female back in 1998, she found it hard to get a job as a lawyer.

"People were unwilling to have me work with them when they could tell when I was transitioning," Weiss said.

Only able to get a job as a legal secretary, Weiss had to "go back" and work her way up. After getting a doctorate degree, Weiss now is an assistant professor of law and society at Ramapo College. Weiss says how she expresses her gender is a nonfactor with her students and co-workers.

Weiss said her experience beginning nearly a decade ago is similar to what many transgender people deal with in the work force. The state, however, is looking to end this type of workplace discrimination.

Beginning today, New Jersey becomes the sixth state to explicitly prohibit transgender discrimination. The change to the state's Law Against Discrimination adds "gender identity and expression" to the list of categories already protected against discrimination involving employment, along with public accommodation, contracts, housing, credit and union membership.

"What this is going to do is provide a push in for people so they can start to get jobs," said Weiss, who holds workshops with corporations and small businesses to teach workplace diversity. "Even though there will continue to be unemployment, they will find that it is going to relieve some of the frustrations they have that they can't get jobs at all."

New Jersey's law was signed in December but didn't take effect for 180 days. It was enacted with wide support in the Legislature, 69-5 with six abstentions in the Assembly, and 31-5 and 33-3 in its two votes in the Senate.

Several other states give transgender people certain protections under sex or disability discriminations laws, and four more states — Colorado, Iowa, Oregon and Vermont — have transgender anti-discrimination laws coming into effect this year.

"It's just the right thing to do," said Sen. Ellen Karcher, D-Monmouth, one of the law's primary sponsors. "We're all human beings, and I just thought we should give them the rights they deserved."

Barbara Casbar Siperstein, director of Gender Rights Advocacy Association of New Jersey, said making the law "black and white" presents an opportunity to "educate people and make them think."

"One of the things I think that we all want, as people, is respect," Casbar Siperstein said.

Violators could face stiff penalties. The law allows for a pre-trial investigation done by the state Division on Civil Rights or a civil court hearing, and anything from a cease-and-desist order to compensation for the harmed party could be issued. Fines also could be handed out, from $10,000 for a first offense to $50,000 for multiple offenses.

The current expansion adds to the oldest civil rights statute in the country, which was passed in 1945, said Frank Vespa-Papaleo, director at the state Division on Civil Rights.

The original law prohibited discrimination of race, nationality and ethnicity in employment, but was rarely enforced. The section in the state Constitution outlawing discrimination in education and military service was the first to explicitly state such a ban when it was drafted in 1947.

Vespa-Papaleo added that the state's civil rights law is among the broadest in the country.

"New Jersey has a very bold and generally positive outlook on protecting the rights of the people in our community regardless of their background," Vespa-Papaleo said.

"They (jurors) didn't review any documents, transcripts or exhibits, which were considerable," Osio said. "They took the shortcut and rushed to judgment without proper deliberation. We are concerned that the prosecutor's very inflammatory closing argument and mischaracterization of the evidence was very prejudicial."

Prosecutors contended that Osio embezzled the money from a trust fund he was hired to set up for Alicia Waters and her husband, Henry, in 2002. She discovered the money missing after her husband's death, authorities said. She died in 2005 at age 92.

Osio was convicted of one count each of grand theft, theft from an elder, forgery and perjury.

He remains free on bail but could face up to six years and eight months in state prison when he is sentenced next month.