Families suing the operator of a Hartford nursing home where 16 patients died in a 2003 fire suffered a setback Monday, when the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the home's insurance coverage was $1 million instead of the $10 million claimed by the victims' relatives.

The justices' 3-2 decision reversed a lower court judge's interpretation of Greenwood Health Center's insurance policy in favor of the families. The high court instead found in favor of Boston-based Lexington Insurance Co., a subsidiary of American International Group Inc.

"It just seems completely inadequate," Van Starkweather, an attorney for one victim's family, said about the lower coverage figure. "I'm disappointed. It was a close decision. Three justices went with AIG. Two justices went with the victims."

A lawyer for Lexington Insurance declined to comment Monday.

The fire at Greenwood Health Center on Feb. 26, 2003, broke out after psychiatric patient Leslie Andino set her bed on fire while flicking a cigarette lighter. Officials at the time said it was the 10th deadliest nursing home fire in U.S. history. Andino was charged with 16 counts of arson murder, but was found incompetent to stand trial and committed to a psychiatric hospital.

Relatives of 13 of the 16 victims sued the nursing home's operator for cash damages, saying it failed to adequately supervise Andino. Hartford Superior Court Judge Marshall K. Berger Jr. ruled in 2009 that Greenwood's insurance policy with Lexington provided $250,000 in coverage for each plaintiff and the policy's maximum coverage was $10 million.

But Lexington Insurance appealed Berger's decision, saying that the $10 million was the total coverage for all seven nursing homes run by Greenwood's operator and that each home was insured up to $1 million.

In a decision written by Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, the Supreme Court's majority found that each plaintiff actually was eligible for up to $500,000 from the insurance policy if they won their lawsuit, but that the policy's total coverage was limited to $1 million.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sent the cases of six Texas death row inmates, including one of the infamous "Texas 7" gang of escapees, back to a lower court for reviews of whether attorneys in earlier stages of appeals let the men down.

The decisions are in line with last week's ruling in another Texas case where the justices, in a 5-4 vote, said a condemned prisoner had deficient legal help early because appeals lawyers didn't raise challenges that his trial lawyers were ineffective.

The high court returned the cases to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for review. None of the six has a pending execution date, although some had come close to being put to death in the past before their punishment was delayed by the courts.

Among the condemned prisoners is Donald Newbury, 51, one of seven inmates who broke out of a South Texas prison in 2000. One fugitive killed himself as Colorado authorities closed in on the gang. The remaining six were convicted of killing a suburban Dallas police officer Aubrey Hawkins during a Christmas Eve robbery in Irving in 2000. Two of the six already have been executed.

Mitt Romney on Wednesday said requiring all Americans to buy health insurance amounts to a tax, contradicting a senior campaign adviser who days ago said the Republican presidential candidate viewed President Barack Obama's mandate as anything but a tax.

"The majority of the court said it's a tax and therefore it is a tax. They have spoken. There's no way around that," Romney told CBS News. "You can try and say you wish they had decided a different way but they didn't. They concluded it was a tax."

Romney's comments amounted to a shift in position. Earlier in the week, senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said Romney viewed the mandate as a penalty, a fee or a fine - not a tax.

The Supreme Court last week ruled that the federal requirement to buy health insurance or pay a penalty is constitutional because it can be considered a tax. The requirement is part of the broad health care overhaul that Obama signed into law in March 2010.

A University of Utah professor has pleaded not guilty to viewing child pornography on his laptop during a flight from Salt Lake City to Boston.

Grant Smith, of Cottonwood Heights, Utah, was ordered held on $75,000 bail Monday and told to have no unsupervised contact with children.

Massachusetts State Police say the 47-year-old Smith was sitting in first class Saturday afternoon when another passenger saw pornographic images, alerted a flight attendant and emailed a relative who contacted law enforcement.

Smith was arrested after landing on a charge of possession of child pornography. His lawyer says he has no criminal record.

Smith is a professor in the materials science and engineering department at Utah. He has been placed on administrative leave.

Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on October 26, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. common stock between August 27, 2010 and October 13, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges OmniVision and certain of its officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company's financial results were artificially inflated by virtue of the fact that the Company had concealed the loss of its exclusive contract with Apple Inc. ("Apple") to supply imaging sensors for Apple's celebrated iPhone.

OmniVision is a designer and manufacturer of image sensors that are used in digital cameras to convert optical images into electronic signals. OmniVision is one of the leading suppliers of complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors ("CMOS") sensors used in mobile telephones. The Complaint alleges that OmniVision failed to disclose that: (a) it had lost its lucrative, high-profile, and exclusive contract with Apple; (b) competition was eroding its "leadership position" in the smartphone industry; (c) delays in the development of its 8-megapixel product line were threatening its prospects; and (d) it lacked a reasonable basis for its statements about its bright prospects in the smartphone market.

On August 25, 2011, OmniVision announced its results for the fiscal first quarter of 2012 and provided guidance for the fiscal second quarter of 2012 that was well below analyst expectations. The Company also disclosed delays in the production of its new 8-megapixel product line. Based on the Company's disappointing guidance, analysts recognized that OmniVision would not be the exclusive producer of camera components for Apple's new, fifth generation iPhone--the iPhone 4S--set for release in the fall of 2011. As a result of these revelations, OmniVision's stock declined $7.55 per share, or 30.4 percent, to close at $17.27 per share on August 26, 2011 on extraordinary trading volume.

On October 14, 2011, the iPhone 4S became available for sale and for disassembly. Based on a logo stamped on the inside of the camera sensor, experts determined that Sony--and not OmniVision--had supplied the CMOS sensor for the iPhone 4S. In reaction to this news, OmniVision's stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3 percent, to close at $15.95 per share on October 14, 2011 on high trading volume.

On October 14, 2011, the iPhone 4S became available for sale and for disassembly. Based on a logo stamped on the inside of the camera sensor, experts determined that Sony--and not OmniVision--had supplied the CMOS sensor for the iPhone 4S. In reaction to this news, OmniVision's stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3 percent, to close at $15.95 per share on October 14, 2011 on high trading volume.

If you are a member of this Class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm.

Labaton Sucharow LLP, with offices in New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware, is one of the country's premier law firms representing institutional investors in class action and complex securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices. The Firm has been a champion of investor and consumer rights for more than 45 years, seeking recovery of current losses and necessary governance reforms to protect investors and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and its peers. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com.

A key member of the legal team defending John Edwards against campaign finance charges will not represent the former Democratic presidential candidate at his upcoming trial following questions about a potential conflict of interest.

A motion filed by federal prosecutors says Raleigh defense lawyer Wade Smith will withdraw. The move comes after prosecutors questioned whether Smith had a conflict of interest due to a 2009 conversation with a financial advisor for Bunny Mellon, a wealthy socialite who provided the bulk of nearly $1 million used to support Edwards' pregnant mistress, Rielle Hunter, as he ran for president in 2007.

According to the government, Smith told Mellon's advisor that Edwards knew the money was intended to help him. That appears to conflict with statements by Edwards that he knew nothing of the payments.

Edwards is charged with six felony and misdemeanor counts related to campaign finance violations. He has pleaded not guilty. A trial is scheduled to begin in January.

Smith is among the most well-known defense lawyers in North Carolina, with a list of previous clients that includes members of the Duke University lacrosse team cleared of charges they gang-raped a stripper.