A Florida Supreme Court ruling that threw out a $145 billion award against cigarette makers is biting Big Tobacco back, making it dramatically easier for thousands of smokers to sue and turning the state into the nation's hot spot for damage awards.

The 2006 ruling has helped generate more than $360 million in damage awards in only about two dozen cases. Thousands more cases are in the pipeline in Florida, which has far more smoking-related lawsuits pending than any other state.

Though the justices tossed the $145 billion class-action damage award, they allowed about 8,000 individual members of that class to pursue their own lawsuits. And in a critical decision, they allowed those plaintiffs to use the original jury's findings from the class-action case.

That means the plaintiffs don't have to prove that cigarette makers sold a defective and dangerous product, were negligent, hid the risks of smoking and that cigarettes cause illnesses such as lung cancer and heart disease. The plaintiffs must mainly show they were addicted to smoking and could not quit, and that their illness — or a smoker's death — was caused by cigarettes.

Jurors have sided with smokers or their families in about two-thirds of the 34 cases tried since February 2009, when the first Florida lawsuit following the rules set by the Supreme Court decision went before a jury. Awards have ranged from $2 million or less to $80 million, though tobacco companies are appealing them all.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is suing a Henry County law firm over a bank failure, saying the firm's handling of loans to a developer represented malpractice.

The lawsuit against Smith Welch & Brittain and 1 of its partners, J. Mark Brittain, alleges malpractice in Brittain's handling of loans Neighborhood Community Bank made to a developer from 2005 to 2007.

Neighborhood Community failed in 2009.

The suit claims the bank hired Brittain to process loan documents for land purchases by developer Jeff Grant and that Brittain had served as a lawyer for Grant. The FDIC is seeking damages of more than $6 million.

Christine Mast, an attorney representing Brittain and his firm, said Neighborhood Community was to blame for its failure and that the loans were at risk for default from the beginning.

Rupert Murdoch's News America Marketing has agreed to pay a whopping $125 million to settle a years-long lawsuit brought by tiny Insignia Systems Inc. that alleged Murdoch's people unfairly interfered and lied in attempt to take business from the Plymouth company, which provides in-store promotions.

The settlement, which is more than Insignia's market value and more than four times its 2009 revenue, was reached a day after the trial commenced before U.S. District Judge John Tunheim in Minneapolis.

The deal was announced after the markets closed Wednesday. Insignia's stock has traded lately at more than $6.50 per share, a five-year high and partly in anticipation by traders that Insignia would win a favorable outcome in light of recent, similar settlements reached by other competitors of News America, which is part of Murdoch's News Corp. holdings. Insignia shares closed at $7.57, up 3 percent in Wednesday's trading.

Under the settlement, New York-based News America will pay Insignia $125 million and Insignia will pay $4 million in return for a 10-year business arrangement that gives Insignia access to some News America clients. Insignia had sought more than $250 million in damages.

A federal judge on Wednesday questioned whether a key component of the landmark Voting Rights Act is outdated, expressing skepticism about using evidence of racial discrimination from 40 or 50 years ago to justify continued election monitoring for a group of mostly Southern states.

U.S. District Judge John Bates' comments came during oral arguments in an Alabama county's lawsuit targeting the law — a constitutional challenge that a number of legal observers predict could well reach the Supreme Court.

Shelby County, backed by conservative legal groups, maintains that it and other covered state, county and local governments should no longer be forced to get federal approval before changing even minor election procedures. They note that the Voting Rights Act — enacted in 1965 and extended by Congress for another 25 years in 2006 — relies heavily on past discrimination in determining which jurisdictions are covered by the "pre-clearance" requirement for election changes, such as moving a polling place or redrawing school district lines.

Bates posed sharp questions to the legal teams on both sides but at times appeared sympathetic to the county's argument.

It's yet another twist in a family feud that erupted last week over who will control Ho's interests in the world's biggest gambling market.

Ho, who was hospitalized for seven months after reportedly undergoing brain surgery in August 2009, has 16 surviving children by four women he calls his "wives." The unfolding drama highlights a power struggle among different branches of the family for control of his lucrative gambling business.

The video clips show the 89-year-old billionaire answering questions from his lawyer, Gordon Oldham, about the dispute, which became public when Hong Kong-listed casino operator Sociedade de Jogos de Macau, or SJM, said nearly all of Ho's shares were being transferred to the families of his second and third wives.

In one video dated Jan. 25, Ho tells Oldham that he was forced to sign some documents for the transfer and calls it "something like robbery."

"We still go ahead," Ho says when Oldham asks him what to do if the two families don't reply to requests to return the stake.

Ho is currently hospitalized for what Oldham said was a procedure involving a tube in his throat that allows him to breathe. Oldham said he planned to see Ho later Monday evening.

Ho also denies that the transfer of ownership of a holding company named Lanceford — which indirectly owns the stake in SJM and represents the bulk of his assets — to the two families was part of succession plans put in place in December.