The toys recalled Tuesday were all made in China and posed a choking hazard or contained unsafe levels of lead, according to the CPSC. But the agency said there were no reports of injuries from the toys, which also included a "Barbie Doll and Tanner" play set and the car Sarge from the Pixar movie "Cars."

"I apologize for the situation we are all facing," Mattel Chairman and CEO Robert Eckert told CNN. "We'll continue working very hard on the standards, and if we see more issues, we'll promptly notify people."

The recall affects 9.58 million imported toys sold at toy stores, discount stores and other retailers nationwide dating back as far back as May 2003. Worldwide, Mattel said the recall includes nearly 19 million toys.

In a conference call with reporters Tuesday afternoon, Eckert said more recalls may be coming as the nation's biggest toymaker tightens its quality-control standards,

During the call, Mattel characterized the magnet problem as a design issue, and blamed a Chinese subcontractor for the presence of lead paint.

"They did not do their own due diligence," said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director for the consumer group U.S. PIRG."They relied on Chinese subcontractors - that doesn't cut it."

Mattel said it was recalling 72 different products, including 7.3 million "Polly Pocket" dolls and accessories, 345,000 "Batman" action figures, 253,000 "Sarge" die-cast cars, 683,000 "Barbie and Tanner" magnetic toys and 1 million "Doggie Day Care" play sets. An additional 2.4 million "Polly Pocket" play sets were recalled in November.

Retailers including Wal-Mart (down $0.02 to $43.58, Charts, Fortune 500) ordered their stores to pull the affected toys from shelves and stopping them from being sold at registers.

Tuesday's announcement marks another devastating blow for Mattel. Two weeks ago the company recalled 1.5 million toys made in China for its Fisher-Price unit due to the presence of lead. The company said the recalls would cost about $30 million.

It also followed Monday's news that the boss of a Chinese factory that produced the lead-tainted Fisher-Price toys had committed suicide.

Some 70 to 80 percent of all the toys sold in the United States are made in China, according to the CPSC. The agency estimates that hundreds of millions of toys are imported into the United States every year.

"The point is when a toy come into the U.S., it must meet U.S. safety standards," Nancy Nord, acting chairman of the CPSC, told reporters after Mattel's announcement. "What I would like to see, at the end of the day, is toys tested in China before they are imported into the U.S."

The recall is the latest development in the growing crisis over the safety of Chinese products. Chinese officials have gone out of their way to stress the safety and quality of its exports, blaming the problems on a small number of companies.

Earlier this month, China's Commerce ministry blacklisted 400 export firms following the recent product safety scares.

Mattel said consumers should stop using the affected toys immediately and contact the company for instructions about how to receive a replacement.

Mattel's launched a Web site (www.mattel.com/safety/) that includes a full list of the recalled toys. Or consumers can also visit the CPSC site to learn which "Polly Pocket", "Batman", "Sarge", "Barbie and Tanner" and "Doggie Day Care" toys are affected.

The information was not public, the judge said. Donaghy had "unique access," including what crews would officiate at games, the interaction of different officials and players, and the physical condition of certain players.

He concealed the scheme from the NBA and other referees to avoid detection, the judge said. Donaghy also must pay a $500,000 fine and at least $30,000 in restitution.

Prosecutors said in open court that Donaghy bet on games himself; but that was not part of his plea.

The FBI first contacted the NBA on June 20 to talk about a referee alleged to be gambling on games, and the two sides met on June 21, NBA commissioner David Stern said last month. Donaghy resigned July 9 after 13 years as a referee; Stern said he would have fired him sooner but was told it might affect the investigation.

Stern blamed a "rogue, isolated criminal" for the betting scandal that threatened the credibility of every referee.

Donaghy was rated in the top tier of officials, Stern said, and there was nothing suspicious about the frequency of his foul calls. He was assigned to work in the second round of the playoffs, with his last NBA game coming during the Phoenix-San Antonio Western Conference semifinal series.

No other NBA officials or players were expected to be involved in the scandal, which Stern called the "most serious situation and worst situation that I have ever experienced either as a fan of the NBA, a lawyer for the NBA or a commissioner of the NBA."

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco also upheld a lower court's ruling dismissing the defendants' claims that they were immune from punishment because they were government contractors.
Since 1990, more than 2,300 people have sued over health problems they believe were caused by exposure to radioactive emissions from south-central Washington's Hanford site over the years. The downwinder cases are largely based on the release of iodine-131, a radioactive byproduct of nuclear weapons production.

A judge dismissed six of the 12 initial "bellwether" cases. In 2005, juries rejected four more during two trials. Just two people, who suffered from cancer, won damages totaling $544,759 against the government and the contractors that managed the federal site at the time.

The appeals court on Tuesday overturned the verdicts against three plaintiffs, Wanda Buckner, Shirley Carlisle and Kathryn Goldbloom, who suffer from hypothyroidism, a condition that slows the body's metabolism.

The district court erred in ruling that the plaintiff's endocrinologist could not testify that he authored articles on I-131's effect on thyroid cells, because it deprived the jury of testimony from the doctor about the extent of his expertise regarding causes of thyroid illness, the appeals court ruled.

In addition, the defendants were allowed to impeach the doctor's testimony based on inadmissible hearsay of another doctor who did not testify, the court ruled.

"We thus have no choice but to reverse the verdicts against plaintiffs Goldbloom, Carlisle, and Buckner and remand for a new trial," Chief Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder wrote for the panel.

The court also overturned the ruling in favor of plaintiff Gloria Wise, who was awarded $317,251, on statute of limitations grounds. However, the appeals court remanded the case to district court to determine whether Wise had the information necessary to file a claim within the three-year statute of limitations.

That particular ruling is significant because it could mean the claims of hundreds of other plaintiffs will be time-barred, said Kevin Van Wart, whose Chicago law firm represents General Electric Co., E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co. and UNC Nuclear Inc.

Richard Eymann, a plaintiffs attorney, said he did not yet know how many other clients could have their cases dismissed as a result. Despite that potential impact, Eymann called the overall ruling a victory for the downwinders.

"We're hoping that the contractors and the government will get into serious settlement negotiations with us," he said.

The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Contractors operated reactors and other facilities that historical documents say resulted in intentional and accidental releases of toxic chemicals and radiation.

Residents only learned of the emissions when the government declassified thousands of documents in 1986.

People in Arizona, Nevada, Utah and the Marshall Islands have received compensation for being exposed to radiation during the atomic buildup. Downwinders at the Hanford site have had a more difficult time because health studies have offered differing opinions on whether they have suffered substantial or chronic exposures that threatened their health.

Iodine-131 concentrates in the thyroid, which regulates the body's metabolism. Most of the plaintiffs have thyroid conditions, such as cancer, hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism. To succeed at trial, plaintiffs had to prove they were “more likely than not” harmed by radioactive iodine gases released during Hanford operations.

That can be difficult to prove, in part because thyroid disorders are not caused only by exposure to radiation. The plaintiffs' had asked the court to expand the test for causation when there are potentially multiple causes, such as radiation, smoking, genetics or pregnancy.

The appeals court rejected that request.

The court rejected the companies' claims that they were immune from punishment because they were government contractors. The district court already had rejected that claim, as well as claims that the defendants could be held liable for any I-131 emissions from the Hanford facility, which the appeals court rejected as well.

The government already indemnified the contractors under the Price-Anderson Act and must pay any damage awards.

The court denied an appeal by plaintiff Shannon Rhodes, whose claims were rejected by a jury, and upheld the $227,508 award for plaintiff Steve Stanton.

The court also denied an appeal to move to state court claims by other plaintiffs who do not yet have symptoms of any thyroid disease. They had previously sued the contractors for the costs of medical monitoring, but their claims were dismissed.

Van Wart called the last ruling particularly significant because it could have potentially involved thousands of additional plaintiffs.

A decision on the appeal, known as a judicial review, is not expected for at least several weeks. "The decision makers are the judges at the Supreme Court," Abbas said today.

"The opinion from the district court has nothing to do with the case because they can only hear it, but they cannot make a decision. "It will not affect our case." The trio launched the appeal earlier this year.

In emotional appeals to the Denpasar District Court in June, they finally admitted their roles in the failed bid to smuggle heroin from Bali into Australia.

During the hearings, defence lawyers argued they should have faced charges under drug possession laws, which carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail, rather than drug export laws, which allow for death.

The appeal is the trio's final bid to beat the death penalty, other than an appeal to Indonesia's president for clemency.

Three other Australians facing the death penalty over the plot - Scott Rush, 21, and ringleaders Andrew Chan, 23, and Myuran Sukumaran, 26 - have also launched challenges, arguing Indonesia's Constitutional Court should scrap the death penalty because the nation's constitution affords life as a basic right. The case is due to resume in Jakarta next week, with a decision some weeks away.

Meanwhile, there could also be some movement in the cases of the remaining three members of the Bali Nine who are not facing death. Lawyers for Michael Czugaj, 22, and Martin Stephens, 31, said they would soon make a decision on whether to launch a final appeal against their life sentences.

"Next week I'm going to meet (Stephens's) family in Bali, and I'm going to see the situation for the judicial review," his lawyer Wirawan Adnan said. Czugaj's lawyer Frans Passar also confirmed his client was also weighing an appeal.

The only female in the group, Renae Lawrence, has ruled out an appeal against her 20-year term, but could have her sentence shaved by one or two months to mark Indonesia's Independence Day holiday on Friday.

Under the Indonesian system, all prisoners are eligible for remission on Independence Day and some religious holidays, if they have served at least six months of their sentence and are not sentenced to either life in prison or death.

The decision stemmed from a manslaughter case in which a lower court ruled that the results from a blood-alcohol test of a driver were unconstitutional and should be suppressed. The judge ruled that the test results violated the Fourth Amendment protection from "nonconsensual, warrantless and suspicionless searches."

The state appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. In a 34-page opinion, justices issued a 4-to-2 decision, vacating the ruling to suppress the evidence and sending the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Chief Justice Leigh Saufley wrote that the statute itself is constitutional and that the test results are admissible in court if the state demonstrates that the defendant consented to the test or there was probable cause to believe the driver was operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Saufley further wrote that the state's need to obtain information about the intoxication of drivers involved in fatal accidents has to be balanced against the privacy interest of motorists. "We conclude that the state's interest in gathering information to assist in addressing the problem of intoxicated driving outweighs the privacy interest of drivers in the content of their blood," he wrote.

Richard Cormier of Gray was driving a car that was involved in a head-on collision on Route 85 in Raymond on May 11, 2003. An elderly couple from Gray was killed in the accident.

Cormier was transported by ambulance to a hospital, where his blood was drawn. The blood-alcohol content was 0.08 percent, meaning that he was legally intoxicated.

Cormier was later indicted on two counts of manslaughter and other charges, but he moved to suppress the results of the blood test in a court motion.

Justice Paul Fritzsche agreed, ruling that Cormier had not consented to the test and that there was not sufficient probable cause to believe he was operating under the influence.

Fritzsche found the only justification for the blood test was the state law that mandates a test when an accident has resulted in a fatality. He cited a US Supreme Court decision in declaring the test results as inadmissible in court.

Supreme Court Justices Jon Levy and Susan Calkins disagreed with the majority opinion.

"The majority's opinion leads the law into new, uncharted territory in which probable cause, a cornerstone of the Fourth Amendment, plays a secondary, after-the-fact role," Levy wrote.

"Notwithstanding [the statute's] proper and noble purpose, I conclude that to the extent the statute authorizes searches and seizures based on after-acquired probable cause, the statute is unconstitutional."