"This compact, as it stands before you, is unconstitutional. It exceeds the governor's power," Mills told the justices. Attorneys for the governor and the tribe said Crist was only acting on existing state and federal law.

"You take the law as you find it, you interpret it to the best of your ability, and you apply it," said Christopher Kise, a lawyer representing the governor. "But that doesn't mean that you rewrote the law."

Mills also said any agreement made by the governor should be approved by the Legislature. Kise, however, says Crist was under a federal order to negotiate with the tribe. Had Crist needed approval from the Legislature to reach a deal with the tribe, those negotiations would not have been in good faith, he said.

The federal law regulating Indian gaming requires any game permitted anywhere in a state must also be allowed by Indian casinos. Broward County pari-mutuels already have Vegas-style slots, and Miami-Dade County voters decided on Tuesday that they want slots at their jai-alai fronton and horse and dog tracks.

But Mills said the compact goes too far in allowing "banked" card games, like blackjack and baccarat, and granting the tribe exclusive rights to those games.

As part of the compact, Florida has already received a $50 million payment from the tribe and is guaranteed $100 million in the first year. The state's share is set to increase to up to $150 million by the third year of the agreement, and after that will be based on revenue. Many expect the state's share to quickly add up to billions of dollars.

If the compact between the state and the tribe is invalidated by the court, the U.S. Department of Interior will give the tribe permission to move forward with the Vegas-style slots, said Barry Richard, an attorney for the tribe. The casinos wouldn't be allowed to add the card games, but then the state wouldn't be entitled to the payments or any regulation of the gaming.

Under the compact, about 800 Vegas-style just began operating Monday at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Broward County. The high court has no timetable for a ruling.

A court of appeal in October ruled that a jury should determine if Brian Reid has evidence that Google routinely paid smaller bonuses and gave poorer performance reviews to older managers.

On Wednesday, the state high court said it would review that decision.

The Mountain View-based company has denied Reid's allegations but also refuses to say why he was fired. In court documents, the company said Reid was fired when the program he managed was canceled.

Reid sued Google in July 2004, five months after he lost his job as its director of operations.

Callahan asked the Supreme Court Wednesday afternooon to stop the execution.

The Supreme Court on Jan. 7 heard oral arguments in a Kentucky challenge to lethal injection, a case that has delayed executions nationwide. A ruling is unlikely before spring. Alabama uses lethal injection in its executions.

In a 2-1 decision, the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday lifted the stay granted by U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins in Montgomery on Dec. 14.

The court said Callahan waited too late to challenge the method of execution.

Callahan, who is now scheduled to die at 6 p.m. Thursday at Holman prison near Atmore, was sentenced to death for the kidnapping, rape and murder of Jacksonville State University student Rebecca Suzanne Howell on Feb. 4, 1982.

Authorities said she was abducted from a coin laundry in Jacksonville and raped before being strangled and dumped in Tallasseehatchee Creek.

In lifting the stay, the 11th Circuit ruling said it did not make any finding on "the relative merits of Callahan's constitutional claim because we conclude the claim is barred by the statue of limitations."

Judges Gerald Tjoflat and Susan Black, forming the majority, said the two-year time deadline began on July 31, 2002, when Callahan selected lethal injection as the method by which he would be put to death. They said he waited more than two years after the deadline expired to challenge lethal injection.

In dissent, Judge Charles Wilson said the time period to file a challenge does not begin "until the prisoner knows or has reason to know the facts giving rise to his claim and the prisoner's execution becomes imminent."

Wilson said the majority's approach "requires a death-sentenced prisoner to file a method-of-execution claim years before his execution is to take place, during which time the challenged protocol could be materially changed."

In his Dec. 14 order, Watkins wrote that the public interest would not be served by an unconstitutional execution, and Callahan's constitutional challenge should be resolved first. The judge said it would be "a waste of judicial resources" to hold a trial on Callahan's suit before the U.S. Supreme Court rules in the Kentucky case.

The state attorney general's office had opposed a stay and appealed to the 11th Circuit.

On Dec. 5, the Supreme Court stopped the execution of another Alabama death row inmate, Tommy Arthur, one day before he was scheduled to die by lethal injection at Holman prison. That stay also stemmed from the pending Kentucky case.

In court documents filed Wednesday, State Farm said Scruggs and Hood were conspirators in an "extortion conspiracy."

Hood issued a statement denying the allegations.

"In an attempt to goad the media into writing another article about their suit, State Farm continues to add more irrelevant, inflammatory and frivolous allegations," Hood said. "I hope the learned members of the media recognize this fact and refuse to fall for their game."

An attorney for Scruggs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

However, a copy of an e-mail from his attorney, John Keker, was entered into court records. The e-mail from Keker to a State Farm attorney says Scruggs does not plan to participate in Friday's deposition because Keker will be out of the country and unable to represent him.

Scruggs will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if forced to submit to questioning in the State Farm lawsuit, Keker's e-mail said.

State Farm sued Hood in September, accusing him of using the criminal investigation to coerce the company to settle lawsuits with private attorneys.

The insurer also claims Hood violated his part of a January 2007 settlement in which the Mississippi attorney general's office agreed to end the criminal investigation of the Bloomington, Ill.-based State Farm.

A judge last year ordered Hood to temporarily halt his criminal investigation. Scruggs' deposition is just the latest in the legal wrangling that has followed.

State Farm said in a motion filed Wednesday that the fact that Hood wants to stop the deposition "is very telling indeed."

"General Hood is clearly concerned that his co-conspirator will either tell the truth or invoke the Fifth Amendment on specific questions related to their extortion conspiracy," the motion said.

Hood spokeswoman Jan Schaefer told The Associated Press that "we have not filed any motions to stop testimony in this case."

But one of Hood's attorneys, J. Lawson Hester, wrote in a letter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker: "I am in no way attempting to be obstructionist as regards the taking of Mr. Scruggs' deposition, but the realistic eventuality that this deposition will not yield a benefit to either party is now known clearly to both sides and I would like to avoid as much unnecessary expense and burden to my client as is possible, consistent with the rights of the respective parties."

Overturning a long-standing precedent it had reaffirmed only last year, the Alabama Supreme Court has allowed a wrongful death lawsuit that a judge had barred on grounds that the plaintiff waited too long to file.

The 5-4 decision handed down Friday will allow Alabamians exposed to toxic chemicals after Jan. 25, 2006, to sue the manufacturers if they become ill in the future, but it will not apply to thousands of people who were last exposed before then.

"That doesn't mean we're going to stop," said Birmingham lawyer Robert Palmer, who represents the plaintiff, a widow of a Tuscaloosa man who died from a rare form of leukemia. "Denial of justice to anyone is not justice. ... It's a victory, but it's not a complete victory."

Since 1979, the high court had enforced what amounted to a Catch-22. In most cases, people who claim to have been sickened by a toxic substance had to file a lawsuit within two years of their last exposure. But they also could not sue until they were sick.

Since symptoms caused by toxic chemicals often do not show up until years after the fact, the rulings effectively barred plaintiffs from seeking damages in court.

Alabama had been the only state to interpret its statute of limitations rules in that way.

Activists urging restrictions on lawsuits have argued that the state Legislature should address the issue. They also note that the statute of limitations is important because of the difficulty companies face trying to defend against alleged conduct that occurred many years ago.

"More people are potentially going to have claims now," said Mobile lawyer Matt McDonald, the general counsel of the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee. "Because it's not retroactive, I don't think it's going to open the floodgates, either."

In the case decided Friday, Brenda Sue Sanford Griffin sued in 2006 on behalf of her dead husband, claiming his death was the result of exposure to benzene and other toxic substances he came in contact with on the job at a tire manufacturing plant.

David Wayne Griffin worked at the Tuscaloosa plant from 1973 to 1993. He was diagnosed with a rare disease called acute myelogenous leukemia in 2003, 10 years after his last exposure.

The tax break has allowed developers and builders to save money on property taxes because it froze the taxable market value of the land at the time the land is bought. The tax on the land would remain the same until the land is developed and sold.

Since land values generally rise over time and especially if adjoining or nearby lots are sold for houses or businesses the developers and homebuilders will have to pay more property taxes.

The state Supreme Court says county assessors must redetermine the market value of land set for development every year - just like they do for land owned by other property owners.