In a dissenting opinion, one justice wrote that today's decision "rewards Dr. Woo's obnoxious behavior and allows him to profit handsomely," while also calling the original incident involving his assistant "intentional offensive and likely tortuous conduct."

Woo will get $750,000 in damages, attorney fees, and is also reimbursed the $250,000 that he paid to settle the original lawsuit with his employee.

The eight-year legal jumble can all be traced back to a pot-bellied pig named Walter, owned by Woo's surgical assistant. The assistant, who worked for Woo for five years, talked frequently about Walter in the office, and about the abandoned pot-bellied pigs that she cared for, according to court documents.

Woo made several remarks, including how he would like to barbecue Walter, documents said. He went on a boar-hunting trip and brought back pictures of a dead boar to show the assistant. Woo claimed that his comments were just part of a "friendly working environment," documents said.

But then he pulled out the fake boar tusks.

The assistant needed to have two teeth replaced with implants, and Woo told her he could do it, documents said.

Woo prepared a pair of fake boar tusks and, while his assistant was sedated for the procedure, Woo removed the oxygen mask, inserted the tusks in her mouth and took photos without her consent. He later developed the pictures and showed them to employees, and later one of his other employees gave them to the assistant as a birthday present. The assistant was stunned.

So stunned that she filed a lawsuit with several complaints against the dentist, including invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress and medical negligence.

Woo sought defense with his insurer, Fireman's, who would not defend him because his actions did not fall under "dental services," documents said.

Woo settled with his assistant for $250,000 and then took his insurer to court. In June 2003, the King County Superior Court jury awarded the dentist $750,000, but that was overturned two years later by the state Court of Appeals, although it left the $250,000 settlement intact.

Gonzales didn't mention this latest controversy, instead, sticking to his speech to law enforcement.

"My promise to this group and to the parents of America is that I'm committed. I will not rest, even after I'm no longer attorney general, until this nation is better able to shield our children from crimes," he said.

Gonzales has resisted calls from members of Congress to step down as attorney general. The White House defended Gonzales on Thursday against accusations he gave misleading testimony to Congress. A key Republican senator critical of Gonzales said there was no sign that President Bush's support for the attorney general was weakening.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, accompanied Bush on an Air Force One on a trip to Philadelphia. At a hearing on Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Republican had told Gonzales, "I do not find your testimony credible, candidly."

The senator Thursday that Bush was sticking by Gonzales out of personal loyalty, despite the attorney general's deteriorating support on Capitol Hill. "The hearing two days ago was devastating (for Gonzales). But so was the hearing before that and so was the hearing before that," Specter said.

Even drivers suspected of buying a small amount of marijuana, a low-level crime punishable by a $100 fine, faced seizures in many of the cities with the ordinances.

The 4-3 ruling said only state law can mete out punishment for drug and prostitution offenses and without authorization from the Legislature, cities can't pass seizure ordinances that are harsher than state and federal laws.

Many urban city councils said they enacted the seizure laws as a way to combat drug sales and prostitution and clean up some of their most blighted neighborhoods.

The ruling didn't address newer city laws that allow police to seize cars allegedly participating in illegal street races and "sideshows."

The ruling, which caught Mulroney's lawyers off guard, came Thursday in a default judgment by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The motion being argued today in a Toronto courtroom says the judgment was made in the face of a pending motion that challenged the Ontario court's jurisdiction.

In the motion, Mulroney's lawyers argue their client successfully met the deadline to respond to a lawsuit filed by Schreiber.

The motion argues Mulroney can't be found in default without an express court order delivered with proper notice to his lawyers.

Schreiber sued the former prime minister to recoup $300,000 in cash the businessman says he handed to Mulroney over three meetings in hotel rooms in New York and Montreal in 1993 and 1994.

The court, in a Thursday ruling, suggested that by not bringing the soldiers to justice, Russian prosecutors had implicitly accepted the massacre in Novye Aldi, when security forces rampaged through the town, setting fire to houses and killing at least 50 civilians.

``The astonishing ineffectiveness of the prosecuting authorities in this case can only be qualified as acquiescence in the events,'' the court said in its decision.

Moscow has denied that its security forces are guilty of atrocities in the southern Muslim republic of Chechnya, where two wars have been fought to re-establish Russian control following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

But relatives of Chechen victims have recently been seeking reparations from the Strasbourg-based human rights court - and winning.

Russia said last week that it wanted to restrict the flow of appeals to the court by allowing its citizens to file human rights cases against the state in Russian courts - something they cannot do now.

Chechens have opposed this move, saying they fear the government wants to deprive them of their only hope for justice.

The court has issued more than 10 verdicts against Russia in the past few months in cases concerning the Chechen wars. Some 200 are still pending.