A federal judge awarded $30 million Monday to more than 200 investors who claim they were defrauded by a pair of Nebraska City brokers.

The decision came in a class-action lawsuit filed in 2007 by former clients of Rebecca Engle and Brian Schuster in U.S. District Court in Omaha. It accuses them of improperly selling risky investments.

The $30 million judgment was against Schuster, a former Nebraska football player, and some of his investment firms. It does not include Engle.

J.L. Spray, an attorney for the investors, said Tuesday that he was pleased with the judge's decision but "it leaves the question of how much of this we'll be able to collect."

Schuster, who has since moved to Vermillion, S.D., is representing himself in court. A number listed for him rang unanswered Tuesday.

Spray said the case against Engle has been put on hold pending her bankruptcy case in Arizona.

Schuster, 37, is scheduled to stand trial next month in state court on eight counts of security fraud. Engle, 57, has pleaded guilty to two counts and awaits sentencing. Several lawsuits and arbitration claims have been filed against them.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the ability of people to combine forces and fight corporations together when they want to dispute contracts for cell phones, cable television and other services, a move consumer advocates called a crushing blow.

In a 5-4 ideological split, the high court's conservatives said businesses can block their customers from using class actions. The court said the federal arbitration law trumps state laws that invalidate contracts banning class actions.

The decision came in a dispute between AT&T Mobility and a California couple who objected to being charged around $30 in sales tax for what they were told was a free cell phone.

Businesses commonly require arbitration clauses in consumer contracts to protect them from facing their customers in court. The Supreme Court's decision means that corporations now won't need to worry about consumers, shareholders or even employees banding together and fighting them using lawsuits or arbitration, consumer groups said.

"Now, whenever you sign a contract to get a cell phone, open a bank account or take a job, you may be giving up your right to hold companies accountable for fraud, discrimination or other illegal practices," said Deepak Gupta, a Public Citizen lawyer who argued the case.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the decision would hamper the rights of consumers to be protected by state laws.

"Class actions are an effective way to ensure consumer protection, but today's opinion by the Roberts court continued to move in a direction that undermines this access to justice for hard-working Americans," Leahy said.

A lawyer told the state Supreme Court yesterday that his client’s death penalty case was the weakest one ever to go before the high court, alleging that the jury was biased and that key evidence was improperly withheld from the trial.

Justices heard the appeal of former Torrington resident Eduardo Santiago, 31, who prosecutors say agreed in 2000 to kill a West Hartford man in exchange for a pink-striped snowmobile with a broken clutch. He was sentenced to death by lethal injection in 2005 after a jury convicted him, despite no clear evidence that he was the one who pulled the rifle trigger.

Two other men are serving life prison sentences for the killing of Joseph Niwinski, 45, who was shot in the head while sleeping in his home.

Santiago’s lawyer, Assistant Public Defender Mark Rademacher, told the Supreme Court that there was no way a reasonable jury could have condemned Santiago. The defense presented 25 mitigating factors, including Santiago’s troubled childhood, for jurors to consider against the death penalty, while the state based its argument for execution on one aggravating factor, that Niwinski was killed in a murder-for-hire plot.

A man charged under an Ohio fetal homicide law with trying to force his pregnant girlfriend at gunpoint to get an abortion pleaded guilty Thursday to attempted murder, weapons and abduction counts.

Dominic Holt-Reid pulled a gun Oct. 6 on girlfriend Yolanda Burgess, who was three months pregnant, and forced her to drive to an abortion clinic, police said. Burgess, who was 26 at the time, did not go through with the procedure but instead passed a note to a clinic employee, who called police.

Prosecutors had brought their case against Holt-Reid using the state's 1996 law that says a person can be found guilty of murder for causing the unlawful termination of a pregnancy.

Holt-Reid, 28, faces up to 20 years in prison and a $40,000 fine. A presentencing investigation was ordered, and the next hearing was scheduled for June 9.

Holt-Reid had previously pleaded not guilty to charges of attempted murder, kidnapping, improper handling of a firearm and carrying a concealed weapon. His guilty pleas in Franklin County Common Pleas Court came a day after Prosecutor Ron O'Brien told The Associated Press in a statement that a plea deal was in the works.

The Supreme Court says Virginia's advocate for the mentally ill can sue to force state officials to provide records relating to deaths and injuries at state mental health facilities.

The justices, in a 6-2 ruling Tuesday, reinstated the Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy lawsuit against Virginia's mental health commissioner and two other officials.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., had dismissed the state advocate's lawsuit. The issue for the court was whether the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a state agency from going to federal court to sue officials of the same state.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the court's opinion, says the lawsuit should have been permitted. Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case.

Texas has long considered beaches to be public property up to the vegetation line, but a Supreme Court ruling put that in doubt. In November, the court cited early Texas history and ruled that Galveston Island's West Beach could be considered private property.

The Supreme Court agreed to rehear the case on Tuesday morning after the General Land Office complained the more recent Open Beaches Act superseded the earlier law.

The lawsuit arose after Hurricane Rita eroded the sand and left several homes on the beach. The GLO tried to foreclose on those structures, but the property owner took the state to court.