Before the Supreme Court

Other key cases to be heard by the Supreme Court this month:

* SHAREHOLDERS’ RIGHTS: Sometimes, lawsuits are settled in a way that benefits mostly the lawyers. When the food giant Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. pleaded guilty to price-fixing, it cost the company $190 million in fines. But when the executives were sued later, the lawyers arranged an $8-million settlement that went entirely for legal fees. Outraged, the California Public Employees Retirement Fund tried to block the deal, since “not one dime” would go to benefit the shareholders whose stock was devalued. But an appeals court in Chicago said these outside pensions have no right to object to the deal. The court will hear the case of CalPERS vs. Felzen, 97-1732, today.

* CAR SEARCHES: The court has been reconsidering the rules for car searches. Last month, it said traffic violations alone do not justify a police officer’s search of a car. On Tuesday, the justices will consider whether evidence the driver was carrying drugs allows an officer to search the purses and bags of all passengers. (Wyoming vs. Houghton, 98-184)

* PRICE-FIXING: The California Dental Assn. forbids its members from advertising their “low” or “affordable” fees. The Federal Trade Commission says this rule squelches competition and is a form of illegal price-fixing. But the association says federal antitrust laws do not apply to nonprofit professional groups. (California Dental Assn. vs. FTC, 97-1625, to be heard Wednesday)

* COLLEGE SPORTS: Renee Smith, a college volleyball player, is challenging a National Collegiate Athletic Assn. rule that barred her from competing after she switched schools. She says male athletes are often given waivers in similar situations. But the NCAA broadly argues it is a private regulatory body and not covered by Title IX, the federal law barring sex bias in college athletics. (NCAA vs. Smith, 98-84, to be heard Jan. 20)

* RACIAL GERRYMANDERING: In the early 1990s, the Justice Department encouraged states to draw electoral lines in a way that would increase the chances of black representatives to be elected, especially in the South. But in 1993, the high court said North Carolina went too far when it created a narrow, 160-mile-long district to create a majority-black district. The state redrew the district, and its population is now 43% black. Nonetheless, a federal judicial panel struck it down again because race was one factor in how it was drawn. The new case, Hunt vs. Cromartie, 98-85, to be heard on Jan. 20, gives the court another chance to clarify the rules to be used after the next census.