The complaint, filed Tuesday in The Hague, follows a ruling by Italy's top criminal court ordering Berlin to pay euro1 million (US$1.4 million) in damages to nine relatives of victims of a June 1944 massacre in the Tuscan town of Civitella.

In the atrocity, German soldiers killed more than 200 civilians to avenge a deadly attack by partisans.

In its filing with the World Court, Germany argued that as a sovereign state it has immunity in Italian courts, and that any decision rendered in the Italian judiciary is unenforceable.

Germany, which says it has paid reparations for Nazi crimes under international treaties with Italy, rejected the ruling handed down by Italy's Court of Cassation two months ago.

German Foreign Ministry spokesman Jens Ploetner said seeking compensation for World War II crimes was "morally understandable but it is, in judicial terms, the wrong way to address this injustice, and so this ruling is not acceptable for us."

Compensation claims against Germany have been winding through the Italian judiciary since the late 1990s, when Luigi Ferrini sought restitution for his arrest and deportation to Germany in 1944 to work as a slave laborer in the Nazi armaments industry.

Germany fought the case, pleading immunity. Ferrini lost in two lower courts before the Court of Cassation overturned the previous decisions in 2004 and recognized Italian jurisdiction.

Jefferson. D-La., was indicted on bribery charges after agents found $90,000 in his freezer. He has pleaded not guilty and his lawyers argue that his trial should be delayed pending his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jefferson argues that the charges are invalid because a grand jury got access to information about his actions as a member of Congress. That, Jefferson claims, runs afoul of a constitutional clause that shields members of Congress from civil or criminal action stemming from the performance of their legislative duties.

But in a brief filed this week in Richmond, Va., with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, prosecutor Mark Lytle said delaying the trial would cause "further prejudice," or harm, to the government's case against the nine-term congressman. The government brought the charges 18 months ago.

Jefferson, Lytle wrote, has not shown the required "reasonable probability" of success with the high court on the merits of his case.

The final rulings came Friday from a Fairfax County judge who said the departing congregations are allowed under Virginia law to keep their church buildings and other property as they leave the Episcopal Church and realign under the authority of conservative Anglican bishops from Africa.

Several previous rulings had also gone in favor of the departing congregations. The diocese said it will appeal.

Eleven Virginia congregations were involved in the lawsuit, including two prominent congregations that trace their histories to George Washington — Truro Church in Fairfax and The Falls Church in Falls Church.

The congregations voted to realign in late 2006. Since then, the rift in the Episcopal Church has grown, and entire dioceses have voted to leave the denomination. Similar property disputes are expected there as well.

The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia argued it was the true owner of the church property and that the congregations' votes to leave the Episcopal Church were invalid.

The Supreme Judicial Court's punishment for Judge Ernest Murphy is slightly less severe than the public censure and $25,000 fine recommended by the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct. The SJC did order Murphy to reimburse the commission for its costs.

The case began in 2002, after the Herald published a series of stories depicting Murphy as soft on crime. Several quoted Murphy as saying a young rape victim should "get over it."

Murphy won his lawsuit, then wrote threatening letters to the Herald publisher demanding payment.

Murphy agreed in August to step down from the bench, citing health problems brought on by the stress of the case.

The court issued a one-line denial of an appeal by contractors who worked at the Hanford nuclear reservation. The contractors — E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., General Electric Co. and UNC Nuclear Industries Inc. — were challenging a lower-court ruling last spring that sided largely with the plaintiffs.

The people exposed to radiation lived in eastern Washington, eastern Oregon and Idaho, downwind of Hanford, as the U.S. government was developing atomic bombs in the 1940s.

The government did not disclose until 1986 that radiation had been released at the site, and since then the "downwinders" have sought compensation for thyroid cancer and other conditions they believe were caused by the exposure.

"This is very exciting for us," Richard Eymann, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers in the long-running case, told The Spokesman-Review of Spokane. "With a new administration coming in, we want a serious look at compensation for these people after years of litigation."

So far, the plaintiffs have not agreed to a settlement offer by the contractors that would compensate them based on the amount of radiation they likely received and the illnesses they have, said Kevin Van Wart, lead attorney in Chicago for the Hanford contractors.

In a 5-4 split won by the court's liberals, it ruled that smokers may use state consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers for the way they promote "light" and "low tar" brands.

The decision was at odds with recent anti-consumer rulings that limited state regulation of business in favor of federal power.

Altria Group Inc. argued on behalf of its Philip Morris USA subsidiary that the lawsuits are barred by the federal cigarette labeling law, which forbids states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health.

Justice John Paul Stevens, however, said in his majority opinion that the labeling law does not shield the companies from state laws against deceptive practices. The decision forces tobacco companies to defend dozens of suits filed by smokers in Maine, where the case originated, and across the country.

The roster of potential victims in what prosecutors said was a $50 billion Ponzi scheme has grown exponentially longer in the past few days.

Madoff, 70, said in regulatory filings that he only had around 25 clients, but it has become apparent that the list of people who lost money may number in the hundreds or even thousands.

Among those who have acknowledged potential losses so far: Former Philadelphia Eagles owner Norman Braman, New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon and J. Ezra Merkin, the chairman of GMAC Financial Services.

A charity in Massachusetts that supports Jewish programs, the Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation, said it had invested its entire $8 million endowment with Madoff. The organization's executive director said she doesn't expect it to survive.

Other institutions that believed they had lost millions included The North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and the Texas-based Julian J. Levitt Foundation.

Hedge funds and other investment groups looked like big losers too. The Fairfield Greenwich Group said it had some $7.5 billion in investments linked to Madoff. A private Swiss bank, Banque Benedict Hentsch Fairfield Partners SA, said it had $47.5 million worth of client assets at risk.