In a case that could resonate in Washington, the Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the state’s five-year-old medical malpractice law because it limited compensation to injured patients for pain, suffering and other non-economic harms.

The ruling came down as federal proposals to cap malpractice awards are receiving fresh attention on Capitol Hill. Republicans enthusiastically support the limits, and they are seen as a potential vehicle for restarting the stalled health care negotiations in Congress with bipartisan impetus. Neither the House bill that Democrats passed late last year nor its Senate counterpart included significant changes to medical malpractice regulations.

In a 4-to-2 ruling, the Illinois court wrote that the legislature, in enacting the 2005 law, violated the state Constitution’s separation of powers clause by imposing decisions that should be reserved for judges and juries. The law established caps of $500,000 for non-economic damages in verdicts against doctors and $1 million in cases against hospitals.

The decision armed opponents of such provisions with fresh ammunition, and held a particular sting for the American Medical Association, which has its headquarters in Chicago.

A Wisconsin appeals court has overturned the conviction of a man who was accused of trying to meet an underage girl to have sex.

The District 2 Court of Appeals says the prosecutor knew the woman that Clifford Bvocik wanted to meet was actually 28, but falsely suggested she was really 14 in his closing arguments.

Bvocik had been trying to meet the woman after they both joined a sex-themed Web site for adults.

The 28-year-old woman listed her actual age on the site, but later lied to Bvocik that she was 14. He continued to try to meet despite the claim, and she contacted Manitowoc Police.

Police continued communicating with Bvocik under her persona, and he was arrested after he went to meet her.

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the city did not violate the First Amendment by limiting the number of billboards along its roadways and parks.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said the city's goals of reducing visual clutter, improving the overall aesthetic appearance of the city and regulating traffic safety were reasonable.

"The fact that the city has chosen to value some types of commercial speech over others does not make the regulation irrational," the appeals court said. It concluded that it did not matter that the city had enforced its regulations sporadically since 1940.

A lower court judge reached the same conclusion in the case last year. That ruling was appealed by companies, including Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. and Metro Fuel LLC, that market hundreds of billboards.

They said the city infringed on commercial speech rights by stiffening rules against big billboards and lighted signs near parks and highways while letting smaller signs flourish on lampposts, taxicabs and phone booths. A lawyer for the companies did not immediately return a phone message for comment.

As Al Milano watched in court, prosecutors laid out a sampling of Jamar Houser's previous run-ins with the law even before the 18-year-old was accused of killing 80-year-old Angeline Fimognari last month.

Houser, who was arrested Friday, was arraigned Monday and issued $3 million bond in the Jan. 23 shooting death of Fimognari in the parking lot of St. Dominic's Church on the city's South Side.

Authorities said Houser's record dates back to when he was just 14 and convicted in juvenile court of receiving stolen property. Two years later, he was convicted on aggravated robbery. Then in September, he was accused of assaulting Jabone Kennedy, who claimed Houser thought he had said something about his father.

That same day Houser was arrested for reportedly firing a gun into the air outside his house on Volney Road. His bond for that was set at $500,000.

"If that bond were still in place, he likely would still be incarcerated pending trial," said city Prosecutor Jay Macejko.

A judge ruled Monday that online travel sites such as Expedia do not owe the city of Anaheim $21 million in hotel taxes for rooms booked over the Internet, the first ruling of its kind in California on an issue that has bubbled up in cities across the country.

In her ruling, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl set aside last year's decision by a city hearing officer that the travel booking sites owed $21.3 million to Anaheim in back hotel taxes.

The city is reviewing its options, spokeswoman Marty DeSollar said in an e-mailed statement.

A coalition of the online travel sites, including Priceline, Expedia Inc., Orbitz, Hotwire, Hotels.com and Trip Network Inc., filed papers asking to overturn the hearing officer's ruling.

Such disputes are increasingly common between online travel companies and tourist-dependent cities.

Lawsuits or complaints have been filed around the country by cities or customers, including in Georgia, Maryland, Texas, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and in the California cities of San Diego and San Francisco.

A conservative legal foundation on Wednesday asked federal regulators to give a green light to corporations and unions to begin spending their treasuries to influence this year's congressional elections.

The James Madison Center for Free Speech asked the Federal Election Commission to formally throw out its rules that restrict corporate and union spending on politics, saying the step is needed to implement last week's Supreme Court decision that freed such groups to get more directly involved in election campaigns.

"This is an election year," said James Bopp, the center's attorney. "Speakers will want to exercise the First Amendment rights to political speech" outlined in last week's decision, he said, "so the FEC should adopt these regulations quickly."

Without a formal declaration by the FEC, Bopp said, advocacy groups will be hesitant to take full advantage of the new leeway the Supreme Court granted in last week's controversial 5-4 ruling, fearing they might be subject to enforcement action.

The state Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote Tuesday that the governor has line-item veto power on sections of legislation that place "conditions or restrictions on previously appropriated funds.”

The decision handed down Tuesday ends a legal challenge from Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee, R-Oklahoma City, and House Speaker Chris Benge, R-Tulsa.

"This was never a hostile lawsuit, nor was it an attack on the governor’s constitutional right to line-item veto,” said Benge, R-Tulsa. "We were merely seeking clarification on the proper use of the line-item veto, which we have now received from the courts.

"While we disagree with the ruling, and agree with the dissenting opinion, we respect the court’s decision,” he said.

Legislative leaders filed two lawsuits asking the Supreme Court to decide whether Gov. Brad Henry has the authority after he used the line-item veto to change certain sections of legislation that affected agency budgets. Attorneys for Coffee and Benge argued that the governor only had the power to veto portions of appropriation bills.