The outcome of the case may depend on a 1968 Supreme Court decision which created an exception to the general prohibition on taxpayer challenges to the government spending of tax revenue. In that case, Board of Education v. Allen, the Court allowed taxpayers to challenge congressional spending for private religious schools.

Still, Disney officials said the lawsuit is necessary to ensure that this development and others go through required environmental studies, which they claim were skipped in this proposal. City staffers have said previous reviews were sufficient.

"Our concern is, this could quickly unravel the Anaheim Resort area and the golden egg that it is for Anaheim," said Rob Doughty, a Disneyland Resort spokesman.

Mayor Curt Pringle, who was against the residential plan, said he would leave it to the lawyers to consider the merits of the case.

But he said the lawsuit was a dramatic step on the part of Disney, the city's largest employer that is the center of the resort where much of the local taxes are generated.

"This is a very significant action. This is something that we should not take lightly," Pringle said.

Some council members said they were taken aback by the lawsuit, while others saw it coming.

"It's absolutely a surprise,'' said Councilman Harry Sidhu, who voted against the zoning change. "At the same time, they have a right to defend their position and we'll see what their demands are. I do not like to see any kind of lawsuit. I'm the type of person that wants a settlement, and I would like to give them a chance to present their case."

The lawsuit stems from unusual actions taken by both the council and the Planning Commission.

In August, four of five council members asked the staff for the zoning change to pave the way for SunCal to propose a 1,500-home development, including 200 affordable units.

Affordable-housing advocates praised the plan as a way to build low-cost homes near resort jobs. But business leaders said the proposal went against the long-term vision to put hotels and tourist venues on the 26.7-acre plot.

Last month, the commission went against the council's direction and rejected the residential zoning, agreeing with Disney that homes are incompatible with the resort area.

At the same time, the commission backed the city's recommendation to approve environmental documents, which outline how much development the surrounding roads, sewers and other infrastructure can handle. City staff relied on previous studies, instead of conducting new ones.

Because the council deadlocked on the plan, the commission's vote stands as the final decision.

Disney disagrees with the commission's endorsement of the environmental studies and now is suing to force the city to conduct them.

Frank Elfend, a consultant for SunCal, said he believes the lawsuit is unfounded. SunCal is requesting a council re-hearing on the zoning change.

"We think that this is another intimidation action on Disney's part," Elfend said.

The private law firm hired to represent the state Office of Legislative Services amid a federal grand jury investigation has submitted a $55,000 bill for its first few weeks on the job.

The law firm, Greenberg, Dauber, Epstein & Tucker, submitted an invoice Feb. 5 that totaled $55,032.25 for three lawyers' 189.7 billable hours, according to a redacted bill released by the OLS to Gannett New Jersey.

Though the firm did not send the OLS a written contract until Jan. 18, billing began on Dec. 30. By the time it sent a letter to OLS stipulating its rate -- $275 per hour, or $300 per hour in court -- the firm's lawyers had racked up $17,600 in fees.

Because the matter involves a federal grand jury looking at whether lawmakers personally profited from state budget decisions, little of the proceeding has been public.

Senate President Richard J. Codey, D-West Orange, has said the legal fight for which the outside counsel was hired only involves former Senate budget committee chairman Wayne Bryant, D-Lawnside, invoking an attorney-client privilege with the OLS, but subsequent subpoenas issued to partisan legislative offices and key lawmakers have indicated a broader scope.

OLS Executive Director Albert Porroni would neither confirm nor deny that the inquiry involves only Bryant.

The legal invoice renewed Republican calls for a meeting of the Legislative Services Commission, a bipartisan panel of lawmakers that oversees the OLS. Republicans have been calling for a commission meeting since it was revealed the OLS hired Edward J. Dauber without briefing lawmakers.

The Catholic Diocese of San Diego filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Tuesday putting a stop to an upcoming sex abuse trial and becoming the largest US diocese to file for bankruptcy thus far. The diocese had been engaged in settlement talks with plaintiffs' attorneys in the lawsuits over clergy abuse, however, after those talks failed to come to any resolution, the diocese filed for Chapter 11 reorganization. As Bishop Robert Brom explained, the diocese "decided against litigating our cases because of the length of time the process could take and, more importantly, because early trial judgments in favor of some victims could so deplete diocesan and insurance resources that there would be nothing left for other victims." David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said that the filing is not due to concerns for the victims, but rather "its for their own self-preservation."

The diocese told parishioners last week that it was considering declaring bankruptcy in light of the more than 140 pending lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by priests. In January 2007, the Catholic Diocese of Spokane agreed to settle molestation claims against priests for $48 million as part of its Chapter 11 reorganization plan. The Archdiocese of Portland filed for Chapter 11 in 2004, and the dioceses of Tuscon, Spokane, and Davenport soon followed suit in the wake of hundreds of sexual abuse lawsuits against clergy. Last month, the Portland archdiocese filed a new bankruptcy plan including a $75 million settlement of the sexual abuse claims.

Following the example of suspected Iraqi terrorist and US citizen Shawqi Omar, Ramadan brought a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the federal court. Basing his claim on the fact that he is presently in US custody, Ramadan claimed that he would be subject to harm if turned over to Iraqi officials. Judge Paul Friedman ruled that regardless of whether Ramadan was in US custody, a US court lacks jurisdiction over an alien who is detained overseas and convicted by a foreign court. Friedman stated from the bench that granting the petition would constitute an improper collateral review of another court's decision.

The assistant captain operating the boat at the time had blacked out, causing the ferry to crash into the Staten Island pier, killing 11 passengers and injuring dozens more. Richard Smith pleaded guilty to 11 counts of seaman's manslaughter in 2004 and was sentenced to 18 months in jail. Patrick Ryan, the city's former ferry operations director, also pleaded guilty to seaman's manslaughter in 2005 and admitted he had not enforced the two-pilot rule. He received a 366-day prison sentence. The ruling opens New York City up to to tens of millions of dollars in potential payouts to victims and their families. Only two-thirds of the 186 claims have so far been settled at a total of $27.6 million. The city said it will consider appealing the court's ruling.

The system allows candidates to indicate their party affiliation on the ballot and is open to voters regardless of their party. The system is the successor to the blanket primary that the Supreme Court struck down in 2000 on the grounds that it violated political parties' rights.

The Washington Democratic and Republican parties sued to block the new system, approved by voters in 2004. The parties said they would be forced to be associated with candidates they did not choose.

Lower federal courts agreed with the parties. The new system, which has never been used, infringes on the rights of political parties to choose their own nominees, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.

"The net effect is the parties do not choose who associates with them and runs using their name; that choice is left to the candidates and forced upon the parties," Judge Raymond Fisher wrote.