The Oregon Supreme Court for a third time has allowed a $79.5 million punitive-damages judgment against Philip Morris, an award twice struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which suggested it was excessive.

The award was for the family of Jesse Williams, a former Portland janitor who started smoking during a 1950s Army hitch and died in 1997 six months after he was diagnosed with lung cancer. A jury in Portland made the award in 1999.

The Oregon Supreme Court said in Thursday's ruling that Philip Morris and the tobacco industry worked during the 1950s on a "program of disinformation" to create doubt about the dangers of smoking. Williams "learned from watching television that smoking did not cause lung cancer," but, once he came down with it, said the "cigarette people" had lied to him.

Thursday's ruling followed a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court last year to send the case back to Oregon.

The state Supreme Court was told to reconsider the award based on its decision about instructions for the trial jury that Philip Morris had proposed and the trial judge rejected.

The Oregon high court on Thursday said there were other defects in the instructions, violating Oregon law, that justified the trial judge's decision.

The Oregon court said that, for example, the instructions Philip Morris suggested would have forbidden the jury to consider the profits the tobacco company made through misconduct that was not illegal.

The Oregon Supreme court decision Thursday didn't take issue with the U.S. Supreme Court on another point it raised -- that Oregon courts couldn't allow jurors to use punitive damages to punish a defendant for harm done to anybody who wasn't part of the suit.

The instructions about punitive damages have been at the center of the legal battle over the suit brought by Williams' widow, Mayola.

Philip Morris will appeal Thursday's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, the tobacco maker said. Business groups have watched the case closely as a precedent setter for large jury awards in product liability suits.

The Oregon high court made its first decision in 2002, refusing to hear an appeal from Philip Morris.

"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."