The Illinois Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Venture-Newberg-Perini, Stone & Webster v. Ill. Workers' Compensation Comm'n., No. 115728 (Ill. 2013).   Claimant Ronald Daugherty accepted temporary employment 200 miles from his home at Respondent Venture's Cordova plant.  Daugherty and coworker Todd McGill chose to stay in a hotel 30 miles from the plant rather than make the 400 mile/day roundtrip commute after their 12-hour shifts.  On what was to be their second day of work, McGill, driving his own truck, skidded on ice while crossing an overpass, resulting in serious injuries to Daugherty.  Daugherty sought workers' compensation benefits. An arbitrator (i.e., administrative law judge) found the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment, and denied all benefits.  A divided Workers' Compensation Commission panel acknowledged that, in general, an employee injured on the way to or from work was not entitled to benefits, but nonetheless reversed the arbitrator's decision.  The Commission found two exceptions applied: 

In Republican Party of New Mexico v. King (Dec. 18, 2013), the Tenth Circuit upheld an injunction against enforcement of a New Mexico statute (NMSA 1978, § 1-19-34.7(A)(1)) which prevents individuals from making contributions to political committees in excess of $5,000. The opinion, written by Judge Timothy Tymkovich, states that under the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the only constitutional basis for campaign finance restrictions is to prevent actual or apparent quid pro quo corruption. Citizens United also held that there was no anti-corruption interest in limiting independent expenditures by groups (such as political action committees) that do not coordinate with any candidate.  

In August 2012, Shale Watch reported on a challenge to Pennsylvania's controversial Act 13, a natural gas development law that prevented municipalities from utilizing zoning restrictions to limit where natural gas drilling could take place within their boundaries and granted state agencies sole authority to determine where fracturing should occur.  Last Thursday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's ruling and found that Act 13 unconstitutionally restricted the power of municipalities to govern gas drilling in their own jurisdictions. The most divisive provision of Act 13 mandated that drilling be allowed in all zoning districts, even residential areas, although with certain buffers.

In this matter, plaintiffs purchased a building from seller-defendants who failed to disclose the building's heating ducts likely contained asbestos. The plaintiffs eventually lost the building in foreclosure after evacuating the entire building and being unable to finance the building.The preceding court held that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the seller-defendants because the matter fell squarely within the asbestos exclusion.  Stating that the policy required "a causal relationship between the loss and the asbestos" in order for the exclusion to apply, and noting that such a relationships did exist between the loss claimed and the asbestos (i.e., the dispersal of asbestos throughout the building), it found the asbestos exclusion barred coverage.