The Supreme Judicial Court today ruled that two cousins can continue to sue the executors of their aunt's will even though their lawyer messed up and filed required paperwork 33 days too late.

The court said it's unfair - against "justice and equity" - to penalize them just because "the delay of thirty-three days was due solely to former counsel's neglect."

The case involves two nieces of Mildred K. Dooling, owner of the Devereux School in Marblehead, who hd long promised the school and property to two nieces in exchange for their years of work at below-market wages there. The suit centers on the question of whether they're entitled to remuneration for a piece of the propert their aunt sold without their knowledge.

The complete ruling:

The Supreme Judicial Court today ruled that the makers of Marlboro cigarettes will have to defend themselves in court from a class-action suit alleging they falsified the amount of tar and nicotine in their "light" cigarettes.

The court rejected the company's arguments that federal health laws outweigh state laws against deceptive advertising, in a ruling on a lawsuit first filed in 1998, in part because the Federal Trade Commission has never set a specific definition for what constitutes a "light" cigarette.

The SJC ruling means the plaintiffs will now get their day in court to prove the cigarettes are, in fact, just as tarry and nicotiney as regular cigarettes.

The ruling follows:

Greg Cook reports the Supreme Judicial Court ruled Wednesday that trustees of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum can tear down buildings and build a new entrance to the museum:

It is in the public interest because it will extend the life of the building, it will reduce the risk of harm to the art objects from the increased number of visitors to the museum, and it will make a visit to the museum more meaningful for viewing art by reducing congestion.

Yay, we won! - Museum press release (OK, link is a paraphrase of what they said).

SJC memorandum.

Modernization details.

So Lady Godiva had best stay out of the Pit - unless she puts up some fliers first.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today a Cambridge woman can face criminal charges for dancing nude in Harvard Square even if she was trying to exercise her First Amendment rights, in this case to protest the commercialization of Christmas, because of a state law banning nudity that "shocks and alarms" people.

Ria Ora was arrested on June 25 (the anti-Christmas?), 2005 on charges of "open and gross lewdness."

A lower court had ruled the arrest unconstitutional. In its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court agreed that people do have a right to take all their clothes down, but only if their displays are not "imposed upon an unsuspecting or unwilling audience" (so strip clubs are OK).

In the court's hearing on the case, the state argued that employees of the kiosk in Harvard Square expressed "shock and alarm" when they called police to report the woman (must've been new employees; who knew there was anything shocking left for Harvard Square?). And when justices asked how Ora's anti-Christmas protest was different from Lady Godiva's political ride, the assistant attorney general arguing the case said the difference was that everybody in the town knew Lady Godiva would be taking her ride and everybody averted their eyes except for that one Peeping Tom.

Watch the oral arguments in the case (requires Windows Media Player, but worth it if only to hear the highest court in the state discussing Lady Godiva).

The Herald reports on Margot Botsford and her husband's contributions to Patrick. Dan Kennedy says the whole thing could blow over - unless Globe metro editor Brian McGrory gets mad about getting scooped and orders full-frontal swarm coverage on the story.