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.

A lawyer for Kwame Kilpatrick said Thursday that the ex-Detroit mayor would fight Wednesday's indictment.

"Mr. Kilpatrick will vigorously defend these allegations," Farmington Hills attorney Arnold Reed said at a news conference. He said an indictment is no evidence of guilt and that Kilpatrick committed no crime.

Reed, who said he serves as Kilpatrick's appellate lawyer, scoffed at the indictment.
"A federal grand jury will indict an empty glass of water if told to do so by the prosecution," he said.

He said he talked with Kilpatrick on Thursday and that the ex-mayor wants to do everything he can to fight the charges. Reed also said that the indictment is making Kilpatrick more focused.

Reed said he plans soon to appeal the probation violation sentence of 18 months to five years that Kilpatrick received May 25 for hiding assets to avoid paying $1 million in court-ordered restitution resulting from his 2008 perjury conviction. Reed wants Kilpatrick released on bond from state prison pending appeal.

While busy running a general store that caters to the growing number of Latinos in this Nebraska meatpacking town, Alfredo Velez had new concerns Tuesday after his neighbors voted for an ordinance to crack down on illegal immigrants.

To Velez, the vote a day earlier in Fremont to ban hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants sent a clear message: "We're not welcome here," said Velez, a native of Mexico who became a U.S. citizen in 1985.

As a business owner, though, he worried about his store, Guerrero, which sells food and other products from Mexico and Central America.

"How much more in taxes am I going to have to pay for this thing to go to court?" wondered Velez, 56. "We're all going to have to pay for it, no matter what color our skin is."

With roughly 57 percent of voters supporting the ordinance, Fremont joins Arizona and a few other cities in the national debate over immigration regulations. The community about 35 miles northwest of Omaha has seen its Hispanic population surge in the past two decades, largely due to the jobs available at the nearby Fremont Beef and Hormel plants.

Supporters argued the measure was necessary to make up for what they see as lax federal law enforcement. Trevor McClurg said the measure is fair because it's aimed at people who aren't legally in the U.S.