The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday stood by its ruling that a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant because he found her too attractive and worried he would try to start an affair.

Coming to the same conclusion as it did in December, the all-male court found that bosses can fire employees they see as threats to their marriages, even if the subordinates have not engaged in flirtatious or other inappropriate behavior. The court said such firings do not count as illegal sex discrimination because they are motivated by feelings, not gender.

The ruling upholds a judge's decision to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit filed against Fort Dodge dentist James Knight, who fired assistant Melissa Nelson, even while acknowledging she had been a stellar employee for 10 years. Knight and his wife believed that his attraction to Nelson _ two decades younger than the dentist _ had become a threat to their marriage. Nelson, now 33, was replaced by another woman; Knight had an all-female staff.

The all-male court issued its revised opinion Friday in the case after taking the unusual step last month of withdrawing its December opinion, which had received nationwide publicity, debate and criticism.

Nelson's attorney, Paige Fiedler, had asked the court in January to reconsider, calling the decision a blow for gender and racial equity in the workplace. She had warned the opinion could allow bosses to legally fire dark-skinned blacks and replace them with light-skinned blacks or small-breasted workers in favor of big-breasted workers.

New Jersey's highest court on Monday overturned a $375,000 jury award given to an elderly couple who complained that a protective sand dune behind their house blocked their ocean views.

In a ruling seen as a wider victory for towns that want to build barriers to protect themselves from catastrophic storms, the state Supreme Court faulted a lower court for not allowing jurors to consider the dune's benefits in calculating its effect on property value. The high court ruled that those protective benefits should have been considered along with the loss of the ocean views.

The sand dune in question saved the elderly couple's home from destruction in Superstorm Sandy in October.

The 5-year-old case is being closely watched at the Jersey shore, which was battered by Sandy. Officials want to build protective dune systems along the state's entire 127-mile coastline, but towns fear they won't be able to if many homeowners hold out for large payouts as compensation for lost views.

The U.S. Supreme Court is pushing South Carolina courts to quickly take up a custody case that will decide whether a Native American girl's life will be with her biological father in Oklahoma or the South Carolina couple who adopted her.

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that federal law doesn't require that the girl named Veronica stay with her biological father, but also doesn't give her adoptive parents immediate custody of the now 3-year-old child.

The high court issued an order Friday speeding up the case being sent back to South Carolina's Supreme Court.

Melanie and Matt Capobianco of James Island had lost in South Carolina courts before the nation's highest court ruled the Indian Child Welfare Act didn't apply because the biological father never had custody of the child and abandoned her before birth.

Dusten Brown, a member of the Cherokee Nation, invoked the federal law to stop the adoption arranged by the girl's non-Indian mother when she was pregnant. The Capobiancos were was present at Veronica's birth in Oklahoma. Brown had never met his daughter and, after the mother rebuffed his marriage proposal, played no role during the pregnancy and paid no child support after Veronica was born.

But when Brown found out Veronica was going to be adopted, he objected and said the law favored the girl living with him and growing up with tribal traditions.

South Carolina courts sent Veronica back to Oklahoma at the end of 2011, even though she had lived with the Capobiancos for the first 27 months of her life.

Have you or a loved one been injured in a motorcycle accident?

Motorcycle accidents are very common and can be among some of the deadliest, simply because the driver is unprotected. Many people have started considering the option of riding motorcycles with the rise of gas prices. This form of transportation can save them money in the long haul and is also a fun way to get around. However, the risks for cyclists are high due to the lack of visibility on the road. Many times, automobiles involved in a motorcycle accident tend to blame the driver of the motorcycle due to the common stereotype of recklessness. If you have been injured due to someone else's mistake, you need to contact a personal injury attorney. McDonnell Law can represent you to help file a claim and establish your rights as a citizen.

What to do once you have been involved in a motorcycle accident
It is crucial to understand what actions to take once you have been involved in a motorcycle accident. The first step to take is to sit down with San Diego's motorcycle accident lawyer from McDonnell Law to discuss any questions or concerns you may have. Our free consultation is really here for us to offer our legal advice to anyone who is confused and stressed about the accident. We review over the details and conduct a thorough investigation to determine the liable party for the accident. An accident could also occur at the expense of a defective auto part, in which it is no ones fault. However, there are many cases in which cyclists have been injured due to careless commercial truck or negligent automobile drivers and you deserve every compensation for your physical and emotional suffering.

It is not uncommon for motorcycle accidents to occur when a driver is distracted, loses their focus, or is texting or eating. These accidents should not be taken lightly because a life is at risk and can be changed in an instant whether a drunk driver is behind the wheel or a driver fails to see a motorcycle in their blind spot. Motorcycle injuries are much more serious and traumatic because the severity of injuries can vary on a wide spectrum from injury to the spine, head, neck or brain, sometimes even leading to amputation of the limbs. Your life may never be the same again and it is our goal to get you the compensation you deserve to have a quality life in the future. In a tragic event where you lose a loved one, our job is to defend for the emotional damage a death can bring.

McDonnell Law understands it is not easy going through such hardships and will be there for you every step of the way. The emotional and physical drain that comes along with an accident can last for a long period and we promise to seek justice for you. Our attention to detail and investigation will determine the accountable party and move forward from there.

Consult a motorcycle accident attorney in San Diego today to discuss your case at 619 857 9020.

Most people believe that only the wealthy can afford and benefit from building an estate plan. However, this is a major common misconception and an attorney from Aldrich Law Firm can help you. In San Antonio, Texas estate planning is defined as the process of protecting your assets, both during your lifetime and after your death. The laws affecting estate planning change constantly on both the state and federal level.This is why it is imperative you seek the legal help in this matter so that you can obtain the estate planning goals you want such as tax reduction, asset protection, privacy, and legacy. Don't hesistate and wait too long to take action. Contact a Texas estate planning attorney today.

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber can delay the lethal injection of a death-row inmate who wants to waive his appeals and speed his execution, the state's highest court ruled Thursday.

The Oregon Supreme Court said Kitzhaber did not overstep his power when he granted a reprieve delaying the death sentence of Gary Haugen, who was convicted of two murders.

Kitzhaber opposes the death penalty and intervened weeks before Haugen was scheduled to be executed in 2011. The governor said he refused to allow an execution under a state death-penalty system he views as broken, vowing to block any execution during his term in office.

Haugen challenged Kitzhaber's clemency, saying the reprieve was invalid because Haugen refused to accept it. He also argued that it wasn't actually a reprieve but rather an illegal attempt by the governor to nullify a law he didn't like.

The governor argued that his clemency power is absolute, and nobody - certainly not an inmate on death row - can prevent him from doing what he believes to be in the state's best interest.