The longest-serving current justice of the California Supreme Court announced Tuesday that she is retiring.

Justice Joyce Kennard notified Gov. Jerry Brown that she intends to step down on April 5, ending her 24-year tenure as a member of the state's highest court.

"The state and its people have been very well served by Justice Kennard," Brown said in a statement on Tuesday. "Her independence and intellectual fortitude have left a lasting mark on the Court."

Former Gov. George Deukmejian appointed Kennard to the Supreme Court in 1989, The San Jose Mercury News reported. She previously was a Los Angeles trial judge and an appeals court justice for a brief time before being elevated to the State Supreme Court.

Kennard, 72, has a unique personal history, according to the Mercury News, because she is a native of Indonesia, moved to the Netherlands as a teenager and lost part of her right leg to a tumor, forcing her to walk with a prosthetic the rest of her life.

Kennard moved to the United States in 1961, settling in Southern California. She earned her law degree from the University of Southern California.

In her tenure on the court, she became famous for interjecting questions during oral arguments, often turning them into lengthy speeches before pointing her finger at a lawyer and demanding an answer. Despite being an appointee of the conservative Deukmejian, she was often unpredictable in her rulings and would come down on the more liberal side of social issues before the court.

Kennard was in the 4-3 majority that in 2008 struck down California's long-standing ban on gay marriage, a ruling that preceded voter approval of Proposition 8 — which restored the same-sex marriage ban until the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated it last year.

In an about-face, Nevada has decided against defending its constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, the latest step in a series of battles being waged across the nation on the volatile issue.

Nevada's attorney general and governor said Monday that they won't defend the state's gay marriage ban pending before a federal appeals court, saying a recent court decision made the state's arguments "no longer defensible."

Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto filed a motion with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that said Nevada's legal arguments supporting the voter-approved prohibition aren't viable in light of the court's recent ruling that said potential jurors cannot be removed from a trial during jury selection solely because of sexual orientation.

"After thoughtful review and analysis, the state has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable," Masto said in a statement.

Nevada's move comes as courts around the country and the federal government have chipped away at laws that prohibit same-sex marriage and benefits in recent months. Meanwhile, some states and interest groups have rallied to defend limiting marriage to between a man and a woman.

A South Korean appeal court said the layoff of 153 employees at Ssangyong Motor Co. in 2009 was unjustified, in a belated victory for auto workers who fought pitched battles with riot police at the time.

The 153 were among 2,600 workers that Ssangyong tried to shed in 2009, sparking South Korea's worst labor strife in years. A spate of suicides among Ssangyong workers and family members followed the automaker's restructuring.

If Supreme Court of Korea upholds the ruling, the workers will be able to return to the company now owned by Indian conglomerate Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

The appeal court said Friday the layoffs in 2009 could not be justified because it was not clear that the job cuts were vital to Ssangyong's survival.

To justify the layoffs, Ssangyong exaggerated its losses by under-reporting auto sales and omitting future cash-flow from new models, the court said in a statement.

The maker of SUVs and luxury sedans was hit by the 2008 financial crisis and slumping sales, but Judge Cho Hae-hyeon said the automaker did not go to sufficient lengths to save jobs.

Kwon Young-gook, the attorney who represented former Ssangyong workers, said the unexpected ruling was a victory for justice.

The Supreme Court says steelworkers do not have to be paid for time they spend putting on and taking off protective gear they wear on the job.

The court was unanimous Monday in ruling in favor of United States Steel Corp. over workers' claims that they should be paid under the terms of federal labor law for the time it takes them to put on flame-retardant jackets and pants, safety glasses, earplugs, hardhats and other equipment.

Justice Antonin Scalia said for the court that the labor agreement between the company and the workers' union says the employees don't get paid for time spent changing clothes. Scalia said most of the items count as clothing. He said earplugs, glasses and respirators are not clothing, but take little time to put on.

Washington state's highest court has exercised an unusual amount of power on education funding, and it's prompted some lawmakers to raise constitutional concerns.

Before last year's legislative session, the court ruled that the state wasn't meeting its obligation to amply pay for basic education. In response, the Legislature added about $1 billion in school-related spending, and lawmakers widely agree they'll add more funding in coming years.

Earlier this month, the court went a step further, analyzing specific funding targets while telling lawmakers to come back with a new plan by the end of April.

Those specific demands have irked budget writers in the Legislature.

"They are way out of their lane," said Republican Sen. Michael Baumgartner.

Baumgartner expects lawmakers will continue adding "substantially new resources" to the state education system, but he said the court's position could erode the proper balance of power in Olympia. Baumgartner hopes lawmakers will ignore the court's latest demands, or he fears justices may exercise more power going forward.

A federal appeals court has refused to reconsider a decision that shutters a popular Northern California oyster farm in the Point Reyes National Seashore.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday said it wouldn't appoint a special 11-judge panel to reconsider the ruling of a three-judge panel.

The three-judge panel ruled in September that the federal government had legal authority to deny Drakes Bay Oyster Co. a new lease so the waters of the Drakes Estero could be returned to wilderness.

The small oyster farm's last remaining legal option is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. A lawyer for Drakes Bay didn't immediately return a phone call.