The latest property rights battle before the U.S. Supreme Court started where the Gulf of Mexico laps at the crystalline white beaches of this seaside resort.

The justices will hear oral arguments Wednesday over whether a nearly seven-mile stretch of beach is public or private after the state of Florida poured more sand on the rapidly eroding shores. The new sand dumped in a project that ended in 2007 was designated public property by the state, angering residents who believe their property extends to the water, no matter how much sand is in between.

Six residents claim in a lawsuit they are due undetermined compensation, contending the state's action was a "taking" of their property.

"They have been trying to take our private beaches and make them public for years now," said Linda Cherry, head of the local Save Our Beaches group that supports the landowners. "In this case, they are taking our property without permission and without compensation. If the government can take our property like this, they can take anyone's property."

It's the first major property rights case to come before the high court since Justice Sonia Sotomayor took the bench. Perhaps the most famous and controversial "takings" case came in 2005, when the justices ruled 5-4 that cities had the right to use eminent domain powers to take property for private development.

Lawyers for Merck & Co. told the Supreme Court Monday that investors waited too late and didn't do all of the necessary investigations to sue the drug maker over whether it properly warned about the risks of its blockbuster painkiller Vioxx.

Whether the high court agrees with the drug maker will help clarify the legal standards for determining exactly when the clock starts running for the two-year window to sue a company accused of defrauding investors.

Merck wants the high court to overturn a decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that will let proceed a class-action securities lawsuit related to the tens of billions of dollars in shareholder value lost overnight after Merck pulled Vioxx off the market.

The Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-based company withdrew the drug from the market on Sept. 30, 2004, because it doubled the risks of heart attack, stroke and death.

Investors had accused Merck of providing misleading information or omitting information about the risks of Vioxx. After a widely publicized study comparing Vioxx to naproxen, another pain reliever, found about five times more heart attacks in the patient group taking Vioxx, Merck officials argued repeatedly that was because naproxen protected the heart.

The Supreme Court won't revive a student's lawsuit against a school that punished her for talking about her religion during her high school graduation speech.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Erica Corder. She was punished for her 2006 speech at the Lewis-Palmer High School commencement in Monument, Colo.

School officials screened Corder's speech in advance but she changed her text, urging the audience to consider the Christian faith.

The principal made her to write a letter acknowledging the remarks were her personal views before she was given her diploma.

Corder sued, but federal courts threw out her lawsuit. Judges say the school didn't violate her rights because her remarks were school-sponsored, rather than private speech.

Former NBA All-Star Antoine Walker is promising to pay more than $900,000 to settle bad check charges with three Las Vegas casinos and avoid felony criminal charges.

Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Melanie Andress-Tobiasson approved a deal Monday letting Walker pay almost $13,000 a month over five years.

Restitution and penalties would total $905,050, including $135,000 cash bail already posted following Walker's arrest in July at a Lake Tahoe hotel.

That would settle casino debts incurred between July 2008 and January 2009 at Caesars Palace, Planet Hollywood and the Red Rock Resort in Las Vegas.

Walker wasn't in court. His lawyer, Jonathan Powell, says the 6-foot-9 Walker hopes sign with a team in the U.S. or Europe this season.

A dispute over a beach renourishment project along a 6.9-mile stretch in the Florida Panhandle has become the latest property rights case taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The question comes down to who has rights when a state adds tons of sand to a beach that is rapidly eroding away: the adjacent property owners or the government.

The state of Florida, backed by 26 other states and the nation's cities and counties, contends the new sand is public land for everyone's enjoyment.

The Florida property owners say their rights should extend until the beach touches the ocean.

The high court holds oral arguments Wednesday in Washington.

A federal court proceeding is under way in Salt Lake City to determine if the man charged in the 2002 abduction of Elizabeth Smart is mentally competent to stand trial.

The hearing for Brian David Mitchell started Monday in U.S. District Court and is expected to last 10 days.

A ruling from Judge Dale Kimball is not immediately expected. But the decision will direct how the case moves forward — either to a trial or toward treatment that could restore Mitchell's competency.

Federal prosecutors contend the 56-year-old former street preacher is competent.

Defense attorneys counter that Mitchell is unable to defend himself against charges of kidnapping and unlawful transportation of a minor.

Smart was 14 on June 5, 2002, when she was taken from her home at knifepoint. She was found in March 2003.

Federal authorities are seizing two Rhode Island mansions and a New York City apartment from a Florida lawyer accused of masterminding a $1 billion fraud scheme.

An amended forfeiture complaint against attorney Scott Rothstein lists two adjacent multimillion-dollar homes on Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay. The complaint filed last week also lists a $6 million Manhattan apartment and a $7.2 million home in Boca Raton.

The FBI says Rothstein orchestrated a $1 billion fraud scheme involving investments in fake legal settlements.

No criminal charges have been filed, but prosecutors have moved to seize Rothstein's numerous properties, luxury cars, boats and other assets. Investors have filed lawsuits against Rothstein and others.