The high court overturned a lower court decision throwing out a settlement between freelancers, publishers and database owners including Reed Elsevier Inc., educational publisher and owner of the LexisNexis information service.

The proposed settlement covers freelancers who registered the copyright to their works as well as those who didn't. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York had said courts generally don't have authority over infringement claims on works that are not copyrighted.

Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed, writing that the lower court did have authority to approve the settlement.

The lawsuit followed a Supreme Court ruling in 2001 that freelance writers have online rights to their work. The case largely applied to articles, photographs and illustrations that were produced 15 or more years ago, before freelance contracts provided for the material's electronic use.

The Supreme Court is allowing a lawsuit to proceed against Hustler Magazine over decades-old nude photographs of a woman that were published after she was killed by her husband, wrestler Chris Benoit.

The court turned down Hustler's appeal Monday. Benoit killed his wife, Nancy, and their son before committing suicide in 2007.

Hustler published 20-year-old nude photographs of Nancy Benoit after the deaths gained international attention.

Her family filed a federal lawsuit against the Larry Flynt Publishing Group, Hustler's publisher, claiming that the woman, a model and former professional wrestler herself, had asked the photographer to destroy the images immediately after they were shot.

A small-plane pilot from San Francisco, who hid his HIV-positive status for years out of fear of losing his license, can sue the government for disclosing his condition during a fraud investigation, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.

A federal judge in San Francisco dismissed Stan Cooper's damage suit in 2008, despite finding that the Federal Aviation Administration and the Social Security Administration had violated Cooper's rights by sharing his confidential personal and medical records. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said Cooper hadn't been harmed financially and that federal privacy law doesn't authorize suits for emotional distress.

In reinstating the suit Monday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the law was intended to compensate people for harm they suffer when a federal agency intentionally discloses their confidential records.

That harm often consists of embarrassment rather than out-of-pocket losses, Judge Milan Smith said in the 3-0 ruling.

Cooper, 67, a pilot since 1964, gave up his license after he was diagnosed HIV-positive in 1985, when FAA rules still barred anyone with the AIDS virus from flying a plane. He said he reapplied in 1994 but did not disclose his medical condition.

Cooper's condition worsened in 1995 and he applied for Social Security benefits, with the assurance that his medical records would remain confidential.

He said he regained his health, discontinued his benefits and applied for a renewal of his license in 1998 after the FAA dropped its ban on HIV-positive pilots. He still did not disclose his condition, explaining later that the FAA required 10 years of medical records but didn't say how it would evaluate them.

The FAA revoked his license in 2005 after obtaining information from the Social Security Administration in the short-lived "Operation Safe Pilot," which examined records of 45,000 pilots, all in Northern California, to see if they had committed fraud in obtaining Social Security benefits or a pilot's license.

As litigators, cynics and viewers of A Civil Action know, how and where a lawsuit is brought can determine its outcome at least as often as the merits of the case. Perhaps the most potent civil procedure decision is the case's forum: state or federal court. Generally, corporate defendants prefer federal courts, and plaintiffs' attorneys prefer state courts. As a result "forum shopping" battles dominate the early stages of proceedings, as the sides fight over whether a corporation can be deemed a "citizen" of the state the plaintiffs come from; if both sides are from the same state, the case stays in that state's court.

So the big issue is where a corporation has citizenship. The Circuit Courts have interpreted the key statutory language -- citizenship exists where the "principal place of business" is -- in a few ways, but most assess the "total activity" of the corporation, including its purposes, type of activity, and legal site, and most of the others similarly look to the operations of the business as a whole. Only the 7th Circuit focused on the company's "nerve center", essentially meaning the place where the company is headquartered.

In Hertz Corp. v. Friend, our business-friendly Supreme Court unanimously swept away the case-by-case assessments of where businesses actually conduct their business and adopted the 7th Circuit's nerve center approach. Now corporations can insure federal diversity jurisdiction -- plaintiffs and defendants coming from different states -- whenever they most want it by (re)locating their headquarters.

Expect this decision to produce two dynamics. First, some corporations will relocate out of states where the courts are viewed as particularly plaintiff friendly, insuring claims against them will not be brought in those courts. Second, corporations will threaten to leave, if the state legislatures don't amend their laws to make corporate-friendly outcomes more likely if the case is heard in the state court.

A judge is praising Chris Brown's progress on his probation for the beating of ex-girlfriend Rihanna.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Patricia Schnegg says Brown hasn't missed a session of domestic-violence counseling and has done 32 days of hard labor in his home state of Virginia.

She also cleared the 20-year-old R&B star to travel out of the United States in May and June for concerts. The exact locations weren't disclosed.

The judge's comments came during a Thursday hearing during which she reviewed Brown's progress with the terms of his probation. Brown was sentenced last year to five years of probation and six months of community labor for the February 2008 attack on Rihanna.

A federal appeals court is reviewing whether the imprisoned founder of Adelphia Communications Corp. and his son can face a second federal fraud trial.

A full 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Philadelphia will hear defense arguments that a second trial in Pennsylvania amounts to double jeopardy for John Rigas and his son, Timothy.

John Rigas is serving a 12-year term and Timothy Rigas a 17-year term after convictions in New York for defrauding their now-defunct cable television giant, which was based in Coudersport, Pa. Prosecutors say they used the company like a piggy bank.

A 3rd Circuit panel had sided 2-1 with the Rigases' double-jeopardy claims and ordered a lower-court review. The full panel is rehearing the issue at prosecutors' request.