Colo. court weighs energy leases near Utah parks
Recent Cases
A federal appeals court must decide if the Obama administration gave energy companies sufficient notice that it was scrapping oil and gas leases auctioned off near national parks in Utah in the closing days of the Bush presidency.
The sale near Arches and Canyonlands national parks and Dinosaur National Monument was protested by environmentalists, including Robert Redford, and prompted an act of civil disobedience by a University of Utah student who entered the bidding and drove up prices.
Energy companies are trying to win back the leases and asked the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver on Thursday to reconsider whether a news conference by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar soon after President Barack Obama took office counts as public notice of his final decision.
The government argues that the Feb. 4, 2009, announcement and an internal memo two days later served as notice. The energy companies claim that the new administration didn't follow typical notification procedures and that the decision wasn't final until the Bureau of Land Management carried out Salazar's decision on Feb. 12, 2009.
Related listings
-
Court lets telemarketers be sued in federal court
Recent Cases 01/18/2012The Supreme Court is keeping telemarketers and other businesses on the hook for nuisance phone calls, letting those annoyed by the disruptions sue in federal as well as state courts. The high court's decision Wednesday involves a lawsuit claiming a d...
-
Court orders new psychiatric review of Breivik
Recent Cases 01/13/2012A Norwegian court on Friday ordered a new psychiatric evaluation of confessed mass killer Anders Behring Breivik, after an earlier report found him legally insane. Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen said in Oslo the new evaluation is necessary considerin...
-
Court:Judges cannot get involved in church dispute
Recent Cases 01/11/2012In a groundbreaking case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held for the first time that religious employees of a church cannot sue for employment discrimination. But the court's unanimous decision in a case from Michigan did not specify the distinction...
What Is Meant by ‘No-Fault’ Workers’ Compensation in Illinois?
If you were injured in a work-related accident and have been researching workers’ compensation, you may have seen it described as a “no-fault” system. One of the most important things to understand about the workers’ compensation system in Illinois is that it is based on a “no-fault” system. What does this mean, exactly?
Most employers in Illinois are required by law to have workers’ compensation insurance. And the workers' compensation in Illinois is a “no-fault” system, which means that any worker who has been hurt on the job is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. If you have been hurt on the job, you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits no matter whose fault the accident was.
A no-fault insurance system, such as workers’ comp, works by paying claims regardless of who is to blame for an accident. This provides an important layer of protection for injured workers, sparing them from having to through additional litigation and the through the additional burden of proving who was at fault before receiving benefits.
In Illinois, even though you don’t have to prove that your injury was your employer’s fault, you do have to prove that your injury happened at work or as a result of work. If you would like help to file your workers' compensation claim, Krol, Bongiorno, & Given’s experienced workers' comp lawyers are here to help. With over 60 years of combined legal experience, the KBG law firm is a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law and we have earned the reputation as aggressive advocates for injured workers before the IWCC.