The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that Philip Morris does not have to pay $100 million in punitive damages to the family of a smoker who sued the tobacco giant over its low-tar cigarettes.

The case, however, is going to another jury to decide just how much the death of Michelle Schwarz from lung cancer in 1999 will cost Philip Morris — and legal experts say it could easily be another big award.

A Multnomah County jury in Portland originally awarded the Schwarz family $150 million in March 2002 before the trial judge reduced it to $100 million.

On Thursday, the Oregon Supreme Court vacated the $100 million award and sent the case back to the trial court to reconsider the punitive damages after ruling the judge failed to properly instruct the jury.

The court said the judge should have told the jury it could not punish Philip Morris directly for harm caused to others besides Schwarz.

But the court also supported the trial judge, who had rejected jury instructions the tobacco company had requested.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday extended gun rights to every state and city in the nation in a ruling involving Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban.

By a 5-4 vote and splitting along conservative and liberal lines, the nation's highest court extended its landmark 2008 ruling that individual Americans have a constitutional right to own guns to all the cities and states for the first time.

The right to bear arms, under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, previously applied to just federal laws and federal enclaves, like Washington D.C., where the court struck down a similar handgun ban in its 2008 ruling.

Gun rights have been one of the country's most divisive social, political and legal issues. Some 90 million people in the United States have an estimated 200 million guns.

The United States is estimated to have the world's highest civilian gun ownership rate. Gun deaths average about 80 a day, 34 of them homicides, according to U.S. government statistics.

The ruling, issued on the last day of the Supreme Court's term, was a victory for four Chicago-area residents, two gun rights groups and the politically powerful National Rifle Association.

It was a defeat for Chicago, which defended its law as a reasonable exercise of local power to protect public safety. The law and a similar handgun ban in suburban Oak Park, Illinois, were the nation's most restrictive gun control measures.

"We hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the states," Justice Samuel Alito concluded for the court majority in the 45-page ruling.

European nations do not have to allow same-sex marriage, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled, though gay rights groups claimed a partial victory Friday because the court acknowledged growing agreement that their relationships should be recognized in law.

Seven judges at the European court ruled unanimously that two Austrian men denied permission to wed were not covered by the guarantee of the right to marry enshrined in Europe's human rights convention.

The judges acknowledged "an emerging European consensus" that same-sex couples should have legal recognition but said individual states may still decide what form it should take because marriage had "deep-rooted social and cultural connotations which may differ largely from one society to another."

The European Union's 27 member states range from socially liberal countries like Sweden and the Netherlands to religious, conservative nations such as Poland.

Vivendi on Friday hailed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling limiting foreign shareholders' rights to seek compensation in the United States.

Vivendi is trying to exclude French shareholders from a U.S.-based class action lawsuit on whether it misled investors about its financial health.

The entertainment-to-telecoms group said it was very satisfied with a U.S. ruling on Thursday, which dismissed a suit against National Australia Bank Ltd (NAB.AX) by foreign investors seeking damages in a New York court.

The Supreme Court ruled foreign investors who bought shares of National Australia Bank on an overseas stock exchange cannot sue in a New York court over large writedowns tied to the bank's onetime U.S. mortgage unit.

The justices upheld a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that American courts did not have jurisdiction.

The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee Elena Kagan as “well-qualified,” the highest mark the committee offers.

Since 1953, the ABA has had a role in reviewing the qualifications of federal court nominees, including Supreme Court nominees.  A committee of 15 members — two from the Ninth Circuit, one from each of the 12 other federal judicial circuits and one who serves as chair — measures the individual’s integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. 

While the standing committee insulates its work from all other activities of the association, ABA president Carolyn Lamm is familiar with the procedures used to evaluate a nominee’s qualifications.  Lamm served as chair of the committee from 1995 to 1996. 

Lamm explained, “In terms of legal competence, you’re looking at legal, analytical ability.  You’re looking at what they’ve written, how they’ve argued, whether they’ve argued — how they’ve done it.  We listen to opponents, or from those on the same side and from judges to find out, how did they do as lawyers and what is their legal ability?”

A comprehensive evaluation is conducted by interviewing a broad spectrum of the legal community, reviewing pertinent materials written by the nominee, and interviewing the nominee personally.  After the evaluation is complete, the findings are assembled into a report which is reviewed by each member of the standing committee who then individually rates the nominee as either “well-qualified,” “qualified” or “not-qualified.”  The majority vote constitutes the official rating of the ABA standing committee.

To merit a “well-qualified” rating, a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.  Kagan’s well-qualified rating was unanimous with one abstention.

Investigations of nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court differ in respect to other federal nominees in that they are conducted after the president has selected a nominee; they involve all members of the standing committee; a team or teams of law professors examine the nominee’s legal writings; and a group of practicing lawyers with Supreme Court experience also examines the writings.

Kagan currently serves as solicitor general of the United States.  She was nominated to fill the seat of John Paul Stevens, who will step down at the end of the 2009-2010 Supreme Court term.

When asked how the standing committee evaluates nominees who may not have had prior judicial experience, standing committee chair Kim Askew noted, “There are many, many judges who have served on courts who have never been judges and are very effective judges.  We look at what they do and we go to the three criteria — professional competence, integrity, and temperament — and we look at what they have done in their legal careers in the practice of law, which may or may not be on a bench.”

The past five U.S. Supreme Court nominees were also found well-qualified by the committee.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin its confirmation hearing for Kagan on June 28.  Kim Askew, the chair of the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, has been invited to testify relating to the standing committee’s rating.

Defense attorneys plan to seek the release of a Kansas doctor and his wife while they appeal their convictions on charges they conspired to profit from illegally prescribing painkillers to patients who later died.

Jurors found Dr. Stephen Schneider and his wife, Linda, guilty Thursday. Prosecutors linked their suburban Wichita clinic to 68 overdose deaths.

The Schneiders also were found guilty of unlawfully writing prescriptions and health care fraud.

No sentencing date has been set. Each faces up to a life sentence.

Linda Schneider's attorney, Kevin Byers, blames the guilty verdict on a national crackdown on doctors caught in the middle of a federal policy dispute over the drugs.