The state Supreme Court has ruled in an ex-NFL player's case that Connecticut lawyers can't be sued for fraud for their conduct in court cases because of a centuries-old legal doctrine called absolute immunity.

The court's 5-1 decision came in the case of Bob Simms of Greenwich, who played for the New York Giants and Pittsburgh Steelers in the early 1960s and later founded an investment firm.

Simms tried to sue his ex-wife and her lawyers, alleging they failed to disclose a nearly $360,000 inheritance she received, during a legal fight over alimony.

Donna Simms' lawyers denied the allegations, and a judge ruled against Bob Simms.

The ruling last week cited absolute immunity and said lawyers can be disciplined by a state panel or face contempt of court charges.

The Colorado Court of Appeals has dismissed lawsuits against three companies in the deaths of five workers at a power plant in 2007.

The appeals court agreed Thursday with a judge that there was no evidence that the companies violated duties or failed to provide adequate warnings of a fire hazard.

The workers died after a fire broke out inside a pipeline at Xcel Energy's Cabin Creek hydroelectric plant near Georgetown, about 40 miles west of Denver. The men were inside the pipeline resealing it at the time.

The workers were trapped in the tunnel when a flammable solvent they were using to clean an epoxy paint sprayer ignited on Oct. 2, 2007.

Families of the men and four injured employees sued KTA-Tator Inc., Structural Integrity Associates Inc. and Graco, Inc., claiming the companies were negligent.

The court, however, noted that the sprayer used by the workers carried a warning that "flammable fumes, such as solvent and paint fumes, in (a) work area can ignite or explode" and offered safety options.

The workers communicated by radio for 45 minutes with colleagues and rescue crews. But reaching them would have involved using ropes or ladders to go down a 20-foot vertical section of tunnel then along a 1,000-foot section at a 55-degree slope, to reach the horizontal section where they were located.

California's novel law seeking to ban licensed counselors from trying to turn gay teens straight is boiling down to a question over whether the therapy is free speech or a medical treatment that can be regulated by government.

It's the "pivot point" of the legal debate, Judge Morgan Christen of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday.

Morgan and two other judges on the nation's largest federal appellate court considered 90 minutes of legal arguments over the ban on "sexual-orientation change" counseling of minors, which other states are considering.

The three-judge panel is considering two challenges to the law approved in California last fall. It took no action Wednesday and will issue a written ruling later.

The law was to go into effect Jan. 1, but the court put it on hold pending its decision.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski noted the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California ban of violent video games because the state failed to show a compelling reason to infringe on game-makers free speech rights to manufacture the products.

He said it appeared the same argument could be applied to the evidence lawmakers relied on in passing the prohibition on sexual-orientation change therapy.

A former Goldman Sachs trader pleaded guilty to wire fraud Wednesday, admitting that he caused his company to lose $118 million in 2007 when he put $8 billion at risk.

Matthew Marshall Taylor, 34, said he took the position on a futures contract traded electronically through the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in December 2007 to enhance his reputation and boost his earnings in a year when he made $150,000 in salary and $1.6 million in bonuses. At the time, he was working at Goldman Sachs in lower Manhattan.

According to court papers filed in Manhattan, Taylor entered fictitious information in trading account records and lied to company representatives to cover up the fact that he had put 10 times more money at risk in the trade than he was allowed. He claimed that the $8 billion at risk was actually only $65 million, the papers said.

U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III said he was miffed that the government in a plea deal was holding Taylor responsible for no more than $2.5 million in losses. The amount of money lost in financial crimes usually plays a significant role in the length of any prison sentence.

The judge also said he could not understand why the government was not making a legal finding that Taylor had used "sophisticated means" to carry out the crime. Such a designation would again likely increase the length of any prison sentence. Pauley also noted that the government could have claimed that the crime endangered the financial health of Goldman Sachs, a designation that also could increase a prison sentence. A prosecutor said he did not believe either enhancement was appropriate because Taylor carried out the fraud in a manner similar to his usual work patterns and the company's financial stability was not threatened.

Has the nation lived down its history of racism and should the law become colorblind?

Addressing two pivotal legal issues, one on affirmative action and a second on voting rights, a divided Supreme Court is poised to answer those questions.

In one case, the issue is whether race preferences in university admissions undermine equal opportunity more than they promote the benefits of racial diversity. Just this past week, justices signaled their interest in scrutinizing affirmative action very intensely, expanding their review as well to a Michigan law passed by voters that bars "preferential treatment" to students based on race. Separately in a second case, the court must decide whether race relations - in the South, particularly - have improved to the point that federal laws protecting minority voting rights are no longer warranted.

The questions are apt as the United States closes in on a demographic tipping point, when nonwhites will become a majority of the nation's population for the first time. That dramatic shift is expected to be reached within the next generation, and how the Supreme Court rules could go a long way in determining what civil rights and equality mean in an America long divided by race.

The court's five conservative justices seem ready to declare a new post-racial moment, pointing to increased levels of voter registration and turnout among blacks to show that the South has changed. Lower federal courts just in the past year had seen things differently, blunting voter ID laws and other election restrictions passed by GOP-controlled legislatures in South Carolina, Texas and Florida, which they saw as discriminatory.

In a move that is raising concern about limiting access to public documents, California courts could charge $10 for each record search under a proposal included in Gov. Jerry Brown's budget.

The governor included the search fee as one of the ways the courts can raise $30 million a year to offset budget cuts.

The judicial budget has been reduced by more than $1 billion through cuts and transfers over the past five fiscal years, which has resulted in fewer courtrooms, construction delays and an array of higher fees.

Media organizations and good-government advocates worry that such a fee would restrict access to files the public has a right to view. Democratic lawmakers also expressed distaste for restricting information to those who can afford it.

"Justice that suddenly comes with a big price tag so that not all newspaper reporters or members of the public may be able to get access to court records, for example, can mean justice denied," said Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley. "We know that, for instance, higher fees for investigative reporting could have prevented those young journalists decades ago who exposed the Watergate scandal."

The highest court in Massachusetts is being asked to step in to help manage a state drug lab scandal that threatens to derail thousands of criminal cases.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts is asking the Supreme Judicial Court to find that all defendants whose cases were handled by former state chemist Annie Dookhan have a presumptive right to have their sentences put on hold while motions for new trials are pending. One of the justices will decide whether to refer the ACLU request on to the full court.

Dookhan, 35, has pleaded not guilty to obstruction of justice and other charges for allegedly faking test results and tampering with evidence at the now-closed Hinton State Laboratory Institute in Boston.

The Supreme Judicial Court is scheduled to hear two cases next month in which Essex County prosecutors are asking the court to clarify whether judges or special magistrates appointed to handle Dookhan cases have the right to put a defendant's sentence on hold and release him from jail before his motion for a new trial is decided.

Prosecutors from District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett's office argue that normally, judges are required to decide whether a defendant is entitled to a new trial before ruling on a request to put a sentence on hold and to release a defendant while awaiting the new trial.