The new protections, added in the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act, went into effect in early December 2006. The provisions were meant to protect shoppers from identity thieves, who have been known to dig through trash dumps to steal receipts in search of credit-card information.

Very shortly after the law took effect, class-action lawyers pounced, charging that dozens of retailers had violated the FCRA by continuing to print receipts without redacting all or some of the data . Citing what they called questionable wording in the statute, attorneys for the retailers claimed their clients were operating under the position that compliance with the law meant redacting either the credit card number or the expiration date, but not necessarily both. (Judge for yourself - the statute reads: "No person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt... .")

Companies found guilty of failing to observe this portion of the FCRA can be fined between $100 to $1,000 per violation, a potentially huge sum for retailers that print tens of thousands of receipts per day.

The plaintiffs filed most of their cases in California, where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had issued a pair of decisions that signaled it was apt to be more lenient in deciding which actions (or inactions) constitute a "willful" violation of the FCRA. The Ninth Circuit sent that signal in Safeco Insurance v. Burr and Geico General Insurance v. Edo, saying the insurers violated the FCRA when they failed to tell customers anytime that low credit scores affected the rates they paid. The AP story on Monday's decision says that consumer groups point to the notification requirement in FCRA as "the cornerstone to cleansing credit reports of inaccurate information."

The Ninth Circuit held that defendants could be found liable for a willful violation of the FCRA absent proof that they either actually knew that they would be violating the statute or acted in reckless disregard of whether they were violating it.

The two insurance cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, which on Monday reversed the Ninth Circuit's opinions, sending them back to the lower courts for further deliberation. The High Court's majority opinion, written by Justice David Souter, effectively confined the Ninth Circuit's open-ended definition of what kinds of actions constitute reckless disregard. In order for a company to be found liable for a reckless violation, Souter wrote, its conduct must involve an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known to a company or is so obvious that it should have been known.

Charles A. Patrizia, a partner with the Washington office of law firm Paul Hastings, which is representing a number of the retailers targeted in the class-action suits,
said the high court's ruling was a positive development for the defendants, but he doubted that the any of the plaintiffs would go so far as to drop their cases as a result of today's decision.

"So now the question becomes, even with the expiration date printed on the receipt and only part of the credit card number, is there an unjustifiably high risk that someone is going to figure out a way to guess those last missing digits and use it? That risk seems pretty low."

Mark Rasch, a former Justice Department prosecutor who now serves as a managing director at FTI Consulting, called Monday's decision good news for the retailers in the class-action cases, but said the jury was still out for its impact on consumer rights.

"While this decision doesn't mean companies can avoid liability simply by avoiding knowing about legal requirements, it means companies are free to be wrong, as long as they're not grossly wrong," Rasch said.

"Notices as common as these would take on the character of formalities, and formalities tend to be ignored,'' Justice David Souter wrote for seven of the court's nine justices.

The court also unanimously limited the applicability of a provision that permits damage awards even when consumers don't suffer any injury. Although the justices didn't go as far as the insurance industry had sought, they said Safeco wasn't subject to the provision because it didn't recklessly violate the law.

The insurance industry had said it faced the prospect of billions of dollars in damage claims had it lost the high court case. Some 2,600 lawsuits alleging violations of the fair-credit law are pending in federal courts.

The "most critical aspects'' of the ruling favored the industry, said David F. Snyder, a lawyer with the American Insurance Association. "The Supreme Court balanced both consumer needs and business needs in a common-sense decision.''

Watkins Ludlam Winter & Stennis has been recognized by American Lawyer Media (ALM) as a "Go-To Law Firm" in the area of Litigation. The firm will be recognized as a Go-To Law Firm in a national reference guide which is being released at the end of June 2007. Nominees are chosen from an ALM national survey of General Counsel from the Leading Financial Services Companies coupled with in-depth research & analysis of various public filings and resources. After a lengthy & rigorous process only the strongest firms made it to the top of the list, hence being named a Go-To Law Firm.

Watkins Ludlam Winter & Stennis, which has more than 70 lawyers, is headquartered in Jackson and has offices in Gulfport and Olive Branch.

Additional information about Watkins Ludlam and American Lawyer Media can be found at www.watkinsludlam.com

"It instead opted to use statutory language that pushed almost every boundary that the Supreme Court has imposed for these types of laws," the judges said.

Previous attempts by Michigan lawmakers to stop the procedure were struck down by federal courts in 1997 and 2001.

The U.S. Supreme Court in April upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, with the majority opinion carefully distinguishing the controversial procedure from a more common abortion method used in the second trimester of pregnancy. The latter was unaffected by the ruling.

The appeals panel affirmed a Detroit district judge's opinion that the 2004 Legal Birth Definition Act in Michigan places an "undue burden" on a woman's right to have an abortion.

Abortion rights groups have said the law - unlike the federal ban and the law in Ohio - overreached and would have banned pre-viable abortions, including the most common method of second-trimester abortion. The appeals court agreed.

"The Michigan statute contains no similar exception or clear definitions that would avoid sweeping up protected abortion procedures within its prohibition," the court wrote.

The Michigan Legislature approved the abortion law in June 2004. Hundreds of thousands of voters signed petitions that allowed the bill to become law with only the approval of the House and Senate - both of which were controlled by Republicans at the time - after Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm vetoed it.

A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found "no evidence to indicate that any of the last six inmates executed suffered any unnecessary pain," according to its ruling.

The court's decision reversed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. ordering reforms to Missouri's lethal injection procedures. He wanted the state to involve a doctor specializing in anesthesia, but the state has been unable to find a doctor willing to participate.

Missouri is among nine states that have put executions on hold as it grapples with whether lethal injection is inhumane.

Attorney General Jay Nixon said the decision "reopens the necessary legal avenue for the state of Missouri to move forward on this issue."

Margaret Phillips of the Eastern Missouri Coalition Against the Death Penalty said many questions remain unanswered and it would be unwise for the state to renew executions.

"The uncertainty of all of this is a good indication that Missouri needs a moratorium on the death penalty," she said.

A message seeking comment was left with the governor's office.

Taylor, convicted of killing 15-year-old Ann Harrison in Kansas City in 1989, was hours away from being put to death in February 2006 when the execution was halted. His attorney, Ginger Anders, said she would appeal Monday's ruling but declined further comment.

The third-party question comes in a case before the Supreme Court. The high court is reviewing whether vendors that did business with Charter Communications Inc. (CHTRcharter communications inc (CHTR) can be held liable for allegedly helping the company inflate its financial results.

Meanwhile, high-profile plaintiffs lawyer William Lerach is asking the Supreme Court to review a case that involves investment bankers who worked with Enron Corp. He is alleging that several Wall Street firms should be held liable for Enron's accounting fraud because they financed transactions Enron used to inflate its financial results

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial judge and said the 9th Circuit erred by intervening.

"It is not for us to second-guess the determination" of the trial judge over whether a potential juror is willing to follow the law, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said.

He said the prosecutor and the judge had ample reason for excusing the man, referred to as Juror Z, because he had said the death penalty was appropriate only if the killer might be released and kill again.

In Washington, as in California, that was not a possibility in a case such as this one. The defendant, if convicted of aggravated murder, would be sentenced either to life in prison without parole or to death. The prosecutor asked to have Juror Z excluded, saying his comments suggested he would reject the death penalty for Brown. The defense lawyer replied, "We have no objection."

Nonetheless, the move -- seemingly minor at the time -- led to the reversal of Brown's death sentence more than 12 years later by the San Francisco-based appeals court.

The Supreme Court was sharply split along conservative-liberal lines in its decision.

Justice John Paul Stevens delivered a strong dissent in the courtroom. By allowing prosecutors to exclude jurors who have qualms about the capital punishment, the court will encourage the formation of juries "unfairly biased in favor of the death penalty," Stevens said. "Millions of Americans oppose the death penalty," and juries are supposed to represent a cross section of the community, he argued.

He said jurors who pledged to follow the law in death penalty cases should be seated, even if they expressed doubts about the use of such punishment.

Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined his dissent in the case of Uttecht vs. Brown.