The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday refused to transfer a defamation lawsuit against former U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore by a woman who says Moore molested her decades ago.

The court denied Moore's request to have the case heard in Etowah County instead of Montgomery. Moore issued a statement calling the decision "ridiculous."

Leigh Corfman accused Moore of sexually molesting her decades ago when she was 14 and he was a prosecutor in his 30s. Moore has denied the allegations, but they became an issue in the 2017 race in Alabama to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the U.S. Senate. Moore lost to Democrat Doug Jones.

Corfman in January filed a lawsuit against Moore and his campaign, saying they defamed her and made false statements, calling her a liar and immoral as they denied the claims in the midst of the election.

Moore sought to have the case heard in Etowah County where he and Corfman both live.

"The Court itself admits venue is proper in either county. Should not the case be tried in the county where we both live and where her reputation and character are well known?" Moore said.

Etowah County has also been friendlier territory for Moore. During the U.S. Senate race, Moore won about 60 percent of the vote in Etowah County, while he garnered just 27 percent of in Montgomery.

Several Supreme Court justices recused from the case involving Moore, who is a former chief justice of the court. Five retired judges were randomly selected to hear the case along with Associate Justice Brady Mendheim, Jr., and Associate Justice Will Sellers.

The European Union is increasing pressure on Poland over what it sees as flaws in the country's Supreme Court law, and has given Warsaw a month to act before facing possible court action.

Tuesday's move centers on Polish legislation that forces the early retirement of over a third of the Supreme Court justices. The law is the culmination of the ruling populist Law and Justice party's efforts to put Poland's entire court system under its control, a plan it began nearly three years ago.

The EU Commission objected to the law, saying it falls short of the values guiding the 28-nation bloc, and said that Poland's explanation "does not alleviate the Commission's legal concerns." It said a case could be opened at the EU's highest court in a month.

Two drugmakers asked the Nevada Supreme Court on Monday to let a state court judge hear arguments before justices take up an appeal about whether the state can use their products for an execution.

The companies "and the citizens of Nevada have a substantial interest in knowing how the state intends to carry out the process of killing a human being under a death warrant," said Hikma Pharmaceuticals US, a maker of the powerful synthetic opioid fentanyl that has been blamed for overdose deaths nationwide.

State attorneys also filed documents ahead of a noon deadline pointing to a federal judge's decision last Friday in Nebraska not to block a scheduled Tuesday execution. The filing was based on what Nevada calls "copy-cat" arguments by a pharmaceutical company objecting to its drug being used in that state.

Nevada justices should follow Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf's reasoning in the Nebraska case, state Deputy Solicitor General Jordan T. Smith said, and allow Nevada to carry out the execution of Scott Raymond Dozier.

"Many people of good faith object to the death penalty," Kopf observed. But he noted that Nebraska voters favor capital punishment, and courts should not frustrate the functioning of a democracy.

Two more filings were made in Nevada after the noon deadline, including drug company Sandoz Inc.'s bid to weigh in to argue against its product being used, and an additional state filing arguing that drug companies shouldn't be allowed to begin a "fishing expedition" for evidence.

The Nevada state high court didn't immediately act or schedule hearings about how to proceed with the prison's effort to set a new date for the twice-postponed lethal injection of the twice-convicted killer. But justices have acted quickly on other recent developments in the case.

Dozier, 47, is not challenging his convictions or sentences for killings in Phoenix and Las Vegas. He insists he wants to die and doesn't really care if it's painful.

After Ezra Claycomb was born with severe brain damage and cerebral palsy, his mother considered filing a medical malpractice lawsuit. But in 2017, Kentucky's Republican-controlled legislature passed a law requiring all such lawsuits first be reviewed by a panel of doctors.

The law gave the panel nine months to issue an opinion on whether the lawsuit is frivolous — yet section 14 of Kentucky's Constitution says every person has access to the courts "without ... delay."

Claycomb's parents sued to block the new law, making Kentucky the latest state to have its medical review panels challenged in court.

A circuit judge agreed the law was unconstitutional. But Republican Gov. Matt Bevin appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court, which heard arguments Wednesday.

"This is a modern day version of the poll tax," said attorney J. Guthrie True, who represents Claycomb in a lawsuit he says has class action status to represent all patients. "This has one purpose, and that is to obstruct the courthouse door."

Matthew Kuhn, an attorney for the governor, said the state Constitution's ban on delaying access to the courts only applies to the court system itself. It does not apply to the legislature, which he says has the power to impose rules on the court system. He noted Kentucky has other laws that limit when people can file lawsuits. For example, heirs wanting to sue the executor of an estate must wait at least six months after the executor has been appointed before they can do so. Kuhn says that law has never been challenged.

Kuhn said the medical review process is helpful because it gets the two sides talking before a lawsuit is filed, which could jumpstart settlement discussions. It also makes sure both sides have all the evidence collected before they go to a judge.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has refused to stay Thursday's scheduled execution of a convicted child killer while the state's new lethal injection protocol continues to be challenged on appeal.

The order brings Tennessee within days of killing Billy Ray Irick with a three-drug mixture, barring some last-minute change. Irick, 59, would be the first inmate Tennessee has executed since 2009. He was convicted of the 1985 rape and killing of a 7-year-old Knoxville girl.

Federal public defender Kelley Henry said she will request a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court. She had asked Gov. Bill Haslam to issue a temporary reprieve while the drugs are studied further. But the governor quickly ruled it out, saying he would not intervene.

"My role is not to be the 13th juror or the judge or to impose my personal views, but to carefully review the judicial process to make sure it was full and fair," Haslam said in a statement Monday. "Because of the extremely thorough judicial review of all of the evidence and arguments at every stage in this case, clemency is not appropriate."

The Tennessee Supreme Court's majority wrote that its rules require proving that the lawsuit challenging the lethal injection drugs is likely to succeed on appeal, but Irick's attorney has failed to do so.

In a ruling late last month, Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle wrote that attorneys for 33 death row inmates, including Irick, didn't prove that there is a substantially less painful means to carry out the execution or that the drugs the state plans to use would cause the inmate to be tortured to death.