The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out a court ruling that invalidated a former Black Panther's death sentence for killing a Philadelphia police officer in 1981.

The move was the latest twist in Mumia Abu-Jamal's racially tinged case that has drawn international attention.

The justices ordered the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to take another look at Abu-Jamal's claim that the jury weighing his punishment was given flawed instructions.

The high court acted on Pennsylvania's appeal of the 3rd Circuit ruling following a decision last week in a capital case from Ohio that turned on a similar issue. The 3rd Circuit could order a federal trial court to consider Abu-Jamal's case anew, including other claims he has raised that have yet to be decided.

A Philadelphia jury convicted Abu-Jamal of killing white Philadelphia police Officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981 after the patrolman pulled over Abu-Jamal's brother in an overnight traffic stop.

The Supreme Court has again reinstated the conviction of a California woman for shaking her 7-week-old grandson in a case that has become a tug-of-war with the federal appeals court in San Francisco.

Shirley Ree Smith was convicted in December 1997 and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.

After California appeals courts ruled against Smith, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction in 2006. The appellate judges said they found "no demonstrable support" for the prosecution's theory of the case. Prosecutors said that Smith lost her temper when Etzel Dean Glass III began to cry and shook him to death.

In 2007, the high court ordered the 9th Circuit to reconsider its decision based on a recent Supreme Court ruling. In that case, the justices overturned another ruling by the appeals court that was favorable to a convicted killer.

http://www.insiderexclusive.com/show-titles/36-justice-for-oil-a-gas-injury-victims.html

On a beautiful Wyoming afternoon, June 26, 2007, a 30-foot fiery flame erupted from a gas well savagely burning Shannon Kelley, a 36-year-old mother and self-employed oil well pumper. Shannon suffered 3rd degree burns on 85% of her body, and then drove 20 miles to the crest of a hill to call 911. You will hear the 911 call, a mesmerizing plea for help. Shannon was in a medically induced coma for 8 months to help her recover from all her injuries. To date her medical bills top $6 million, and over her lifetime she is expected to spend another $12 million. Joel Fineberg and Dean Gresham, partners at Fineberg:Gresham, fought for Shannon in a classic case of David versus a corporate Goliath, and won her a substantial, confidential out-of-court settlement.

Joel M. Fineberg has built a recognized national practice representing plaintiffs in sophisticated commercial contingency and patent infringement litigation as well as class actions, catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases resulting from work place, aircraft and truck accidents. Recovering multi-million dollar verdicts for his corporate and individual clients, Joel has built an unparalleled reputation as a dedicated advocate on behalf of his clients' rights. Recognized for his talent and dedication, Joel was named one of Texas' best lawyers and a Texas Super Lawyer for four years in a row by various legal and consumer magazines such as Texas Monthly, Texas Super Lawyers and D Magazine. Joel also serves as a director of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and is a member of both the Texas and Dallas Bar Associations, the Dallas Trial Lawyers Association, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. He is a graduate of Emory University and Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law.

Dean Gresham is a talented lawyer that brings unique insight and a creative approach to high-stakes commercial, class action, and personal injury litigation. Dean's dedication to his clients as well as his attention to detail and an innovative approach to legal analysis has resulted in significant multi-million dollar recoveries for his clients. His keen ability to analyze complicated legal issues and provide unique, creative solutions to legal problems that other lawyers consider to be unsolvable is the reason Dean is considered one of the top lawyers in Texas. After the horrific attack on our Country on September 11, 2001, Dean joined forces with other trial lawyers across the country in what has been described as "the largest pro bono project in our nation's history." Through the Trial Lawyers Care program, he provided free legal representation to victims and their families of the September 11 tragedy. Dean was one of the few lawyers who provided legal representation to over 1,700 victims and their families---over $200 million in legal services provided absolutely free of charge. A native Texan, Dean earned his law degree, cum laude, from South Texas College of Law where he was awarded the American Jurisprudence award for outstanding achievement in the study of Conflict of Laws and Legal Research & Writing.

Fineberg : Gresham handles sophisticated commercial, intellectual property, and class-action litigation on a contingent fee basis. From time to time and when the facts are egregious enough, Fineberg/Gresham will accept catastrophic injury and death cases arising out of workplace injuries, truck wrecks and defective products. The attorneys at Fineberg/Gresham have a single goal: the relentless pursuit of justice. The firm approaches cases with an unmatched aggressiveness, tenacity, preparation and creativity, which accounts for the exceptional results they often obtain with unprecedented speed. The firm represents companies and individuals in a wide variety of areas and has obtained significant, multimillion-dollar recoveries over the years.

You can contact Mr. Fineberg and Gresham at 214-219-8828,

or www.fineberglaw.com

Missouri's top judges questioned on Thursday whether a 2005 law limiting medical malpractice lawsuits is being wrongly applied to people retroactively and is discriminating against the spouses of those injured.

Attorneys for patients argued to the state Supreme Court that the law violates numerous provisions of the Missouri Constitution and that lawmakers had no rational basis to reduce the amount of money that people who had been harmed could win from medical providers.

The law was a priority of the Republican-led Legislature and then-Gov. Matt Blunt. They claimed "tort reform" was essential to curtail rising liability insurance premiums for doctors and to ensure that health care was available and affordable for Missouri residents.

A main change in the 2005 law lowered the cap for non-economic damages such as pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases to a flat $350,000 per lawsuit. Missouri's previous limit of $579,000 had been adjusted annually for inflation and had been interpreted by courts to apply to multiple parties in a lawsuit.

A Massachusetts law that sharply restricts out-of-state winemakers from shipping their products directly to consumers in the state is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled.

Thursday's decision by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court ruling could open the door for connoisseurs in Massachusetts to purchase more of their favorite wines online or by mail order from domestic producers.

The law, approved by the Legislature in 2006 over the veto of then-Gov. Mitt Romney, created a multi-tiered system in which wineries that produce more than 30,000 gallons a year must decide whether to sell retail in Massachusetts through an in-state wholesaler or apply for a license to ship wines directly to consumers. They cannot, however, do both.

The cap does not affect any of the nearly three dozen wineries based in Massachusetts, all of which are small and produce under the 30,000-gallon limit.

"We hold that (the law) violates the Commerce Clause because the effect of its particular gallonage cap is to change the competitive balance between in-state and out-of-state wineries in a way that benefits Massachusetts's wineries and significantly burdens out-of-state competitors," the appellate court wrote in its decision.

As Delaware's first season of sports betting winds down, Governor Jack Markell says the state will challenge the federal Appeals Court ruling that limited the Delaware to offering parlay bets on NFL games.  Governor Markell's office confirms the First State will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in August that shot down Delaware's plan to offer single game betting on all sports.

The state has retained the Washington D.C. firm of Sidley Austin to handle the appeal.  That firm specializes in Supreme Court work.

The decision to move forward is based in part on the willingness of the state's three racinos, Delaware Park, Dover Downs, and Harrington Raceway, to foot the bill for the appeal.  The three racinos are currently the only venues that can offer sports betting in Delaware.

Governor Markell's spokesman, Brian Selander, says the state will offer some new arguments in its appeal.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Delaware's plan to offer single game bets on all sports in late August, siding with the NFL, NCAA, and other pro leagues who challenged Delaware.  The Court ruled Delaware's sports betting plan violated the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which prohibits sports betting.  Delaware is one of four states with an exemption to PASPA, since it previously offered NFL parlay bets, but a three judge Third Circuit panel ruled narrowly that Delaware's exemption is limited to the same NFL parlay bets it offered back in 1976.