Autism is complex and likely multifactorial. These vaccines are administered at about the same time that autism would be diagnosed. It's possible that they noticed symptoms of autism shortly after vaccination but it's likely true, true and unrelated. My guess is that this court case was based on inability to prove that the vaccine was not the cause as opposed to proving the vaccine absolutely was the cause.
That being said, nothing is without risk.
Nothing in medicine is 100% good or 100% bad. A lot of medicine is making the best possible choice based on likelihood of outcomes-- Comparing the risks and benefits
On one side of there is the likelihood of an unvaccinated child contracting measles/mumps/rubella and the likelihood of dying (1 in 3000 for measles based on the article you linked to) or having some other significant complication of measles/mumps/rubella if they do contract one of these illnesses.
On the other side there is the hypothetical risk of autism from the vaccine, adverse reactions to egg proteins in the vaccine, rare aseptic meningitis, joint pain, crying children, skin infections if the person administering the vaccine spit on the needle before injecting, blah blah blah.
Making this more complicated is the public health implication of non vaccination. If we are only considering one child in an industrial country where vaccination is standard practice, the risk of contracting measles is extremely low because of herd immunity. Essentially the more people who are vaccinated against a disease, the less likely that disease is to spread in the population. The more unvaccinated people in a population, the less herd immunity. There's also the risk of spreading the disease to someone with a compromised immune system or a pregnant woman. Congenital rubella makes for a pretty bad day.
This is a very convoluted way of saying that, in my medical opinion, the risks of vaccination are outweighed by the benefits of disease prevention.