As the Supreme Court nears the midpoint of its annual term and prepares to hear several momentous cases, one question looms: Will the justices' split decision reversing past rulings and allowing new corporate spending in political races set the tone for the term, or will Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission be an exception?

"Is this a turning point?" asks Pamela Harris, director of Georgetown Law's Supreme Court Institute. Harris notes that Chief Justice John Roberts' concurring opinion in the campaign-finance case defended reversing past rulings that have been, as Roberts wrote, "so hotly contested that (they) cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases."

"That is an incredibly muscular vision of when you would overrule precedent," which usually guides justices in new cases, Harris says. "That makes it look like this is a court that's ready to go."

Several pending cases — some that already have been argued, some that will be argued in upcoming weeks — are likely to show the reach of the Roberts Court and its boldness.

Temple University law professor David Kairys expects the Citizens United to distinguish the Roberts Court for years. "I think it will actually define more than this particular term," he says. "It might define the Roberts Court."

Lawyers in the Proposition 8 trial are keeping an eye on Washington as they draft papers for the federal judge in San Francisco.

The two sides in the legal battle over California's ban on same sex marriage have two more weeks to tell Judge Vaughn Walker exactly how they'd like him to rule and why. As it is expected the federal lawsuit challenging the 2008 ballot initiative to ultimately be decided by the US Supreme court, attorneys are trying to ensure that they've built a case that will satisfy the nation's highest legal authority two years down the line.

The way to get those judges' support, said Boies, is to build as strong a case as possible at the lower level. That's why one of his clients, plaintiff Jeff Zarrillo, feels it's so important to win this trial.

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.