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.

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday denied tobacco companies' appeals of a San Francisco jury's award of $2.85 million in damages to the family of a woman who died of lung cancer after smoking cigarettes for 26 years.

Leslie Whiteley of Ojai sued Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds before her death in 2000 at age 40.

She testified that she started smoking at 13, using her lunch money to buy cigarettes, and paid little attention to the warning labels because tobacco companies promoted the benefits of smoking and the government allowed the sales. She smoked two packs a day until she was diagnosed with cancer in 1998.

A jury awarded Whiteley and her husband $1.7 million in compensation and $20 million in punitive damages four months before she died. It was the nation's first verdict in favor of a smoker who took up the habit after 1965, when the government first required warnings on cigarette packages.

A Nevada inmate lost a U.S. Supreme Court bid to challenge what jurors were told about DNA evidence against him in the 1994 sexual assault of a 9-year-old girl.

The nation's highest court ruled Monday that it would not hear the evidence issue but did give Troy Don Brown, 38, another chance to argue before a federal appeals court that he received ineffective legal representation at trial.

State Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto called the Supreme Court ruling a victory for prosecutors and Nevada after they lost arguments about the DNA evidence in lower courts.

Paul Turner, an assistant federal public defender in Las Vegas handling Brown's appeals, has argued that the conviction should be overturned if the DNA evidence was insufficient.

The high court did not hear oral arguments before reversing a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that an analysis of DNA evidence overstated the likelihood that body fluids found at the rape scene were from Brown.

The Supreme Court pointed to an evidence standard set in a 1979 case calling for courts to consider all the evidence in a case, not just evidence being challenged.

At trial in Elko County, the chief of the Washoe County crime lab testified the chance that Brown's DNA matched the DNA found at the rape scene was 99.99967 percent.

The witness also told jurors that one in three million people randomly selected from the population would also match that DNA.

For now, the only way Californians can watch the trial over the constitutionality of the state's ban on same-sex marriage is to take a trip to the federal courthouse on Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco.

Just an hour before the trial got under way Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court halted for at least two days the judge's plans to allow video of the proceedings to be uploaded on a delayed basis on YouTube.

The 8-1 decision also prevented live simulcasts from being broadcast at the federal appeals court building at Seventh and Mission streets and at courthouses in Seattle, Pasadena, Portland, Ore., and Brooklyn, N.Y.

The court said it wanted until at least Wednesday to consider arguments by backers of Proposition 8, the November 2008 ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage, that camera coverage could result in threats or even violence against witnesses favoring the measure.

The FCC and Comcast got their day in court Friday afternoon on the net neutrality issue. A three-judge federal appeals court followed a line of questioning that seemed to favor Comcast, but a decision may not come for months.

The issue is whether Comcast violated FCC rules in blocking Bit Torrent traffic and, also, the broader issue of whether the FCC has the authority to restrict Comcast and other carriers supplying broadband. A back story in the complex issue is highlighted by carriers' complaints that consumers' growing usage of broadband is clogging networks.

"This case underscores the importance of the FCC's ongoing rulemaking to preserve the free and open Internet," said FCC chairman Julius Genachowski in a statement. "I remain confident the commission possesses the legal authority it needs and look forward to reviewing the court's decision when it issues."

Comcast attorney Helgi Walker said the FCC's effort to challenge the cable firm was "a policy statement" and, as such, was not enough for the FCC to reprimand Comcast for seeking to control the flow of Internet traffic over its network. She told the judges: "You can free us of this black mark on our record."

If the decision goes against the FCC, it will still have the option of going to Congress to seek new legislation to deal with the net neutrality issue.

A California appeals court ruled in favor of octuplets mother Nadya Suleman Friday, denying a call for an independent guardian to monitor her children's finances.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana called the petition an "unprecedented, meritless effort by a stranger" and directed an Orange County probate court to vacate its order for an investigation into the family's finances.

Paul Petersen, an advocate for children in the entertainment industry, argued that Suleman's children were vulnerable and that an independent guardian should be appointed to look after their financial interests.

The appeals court said the probate judge erred because Petersen failed to show that Suleman was engaging in financial misconduct.

Suleman gave birth to octuplets on Jan. 26, 2009. The medical curiosity of their delivery turned to public outrage when it was learned that the single, unemployed mother had been caring for her six other children with the help of food stamps and Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters.