<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Legal Book &#187; california</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.the-legal-book.com/tag/california/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com</link>
	<description>Legal product guide</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:37:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Woman Mistakenly Put on &#8216;No-Fly&#8217; List Can Sue, Appellate Panel Rules</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/woman-mistakenly-put-on-no-fly-list-can-sue-appellate-panel-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/woman-mistakenly-put-on-no-fly-list-can-sue-appellate-panel-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:37:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[after-attending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[left-the-united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lower-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stanford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-woman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[woman]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/woman-mistakenly-put-on-no-fly-list-can-sue-appellate-panel-rules/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 9th Circuit has revived a suit by a Stanford Ph.D. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 9th Circuit has revived a suit by a Stanford Ph.D. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/woman-mistakenly-put-on-no-fly-list-can-sue-appellate-panel-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dukes Doesn&#8217;t Bar Class Action over Bayer Vitamin Sales, Judge Rules</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/dukes-doesnt-bar-class-action-over-bayer-vitamin-sales-judge-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/dukes-doesnt-bar-class-action-over-bayer-vitamin-sales-judge-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:45:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class-action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[over-health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-class]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/dukes-doesnt-bar-class-action-over-bayer-vitamin-sales-judge-rules/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A California federal judge has certified a statewide consumer class action against Bayer over health claims the company made for its men's multivitamins, rejecting arguments by Bayer's lawyers that the class claims couldn't survive the U.S. Supreme Court's Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A California federal judge has certified a statewide consumer class action against Bayer over health claims the company made for its men&#8217;s multivitamins, rejecting arguments by Bayer&#8217;s lawyers that the class claims couldn&#8217;t survive the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/dukes-doesnt-bar-class-action-over-bayer-vitamin-sales-judge-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit Sides With Gay Couples in 2-1 Ruling on Prop 8</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/9th-circuit-sides-with-gay-couples-in-2-1-ruling-on-prop-8/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/9th-circuit-sides-with-gay-couples-in-2-1-ruling-on-prop-8/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:29:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blockbuster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay-marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[holding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[may-make]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[narrow-approach]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scope]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[somewhat-less]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[split-9th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tuesday]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/9th-circuit-sides-with-gay-couples-in-2-1-ruling-on-prop-8/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Taking a narrow approach in deciding the blockbuster challenge to California's ban on gay marriage, a split 9th Circuit panel on Tuesday found Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Plaintiffs lawyers acknowledged that the scope of the holding may make the opinion somewhat less likely to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Taking a narrow approach in deciding the blockbuster challenge to California&#8217;s ban on gay marriage, a split 9th Circuit panel on Tuesday found Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Plaintiffs lawyers acknowledged that the scope of the holding may make the opinion somewhat less likely to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/9th-circuit-sides-with-gay-couples-in-2-1-ruling-on-prop-8/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit: Calif. Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/9th-circuit-calif-gay-marriage-ban-is-unconstitutional/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/9th-circuit-calif-gay-marriage-ban-is-unconstitutional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:39:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bitterly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bitterly-contested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[likely-consideration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[same-sex-marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[today-declared]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/9th-circuit-calif-gay-marriage-ban-is-unconstitutional/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 9th Circuit today declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 9th Circuit today declared California&#8217;s same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/9th-circuit-calif-gay-marriage-ban-is-unconstitutional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Divorcee Slapped With Record-Setting $552K Sanction in Custody Case</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/divorcee-slapped-with-record-setting-552k-sanction-in-custody-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/divorcee-slapped-with-record-setting-552k-sanction-in-custody-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:16:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney-called]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad-behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[between-two]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[from-hell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal-filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nasty-custody]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wealthy-people]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/divorcee-slapped-with-record-setting-552k-sanction-in-custody-case/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Following what one attorney called "the divorce from hell" and more than six years of cross-country legal filings and accusations of bad behavior between two wealthy people, a California appeal court has upheld record-setting sanctions against a divorcee in a nasty custody battle with her ex-husband.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Following what one attorney called &#8220;the divorce from hell&#8221; and more than six years of cross-country legal filings and accusations of bad behavior between two wealthy people, a California appeal court has upheld record-setting sanctions against a divorcee in a nasty custody battle with her ex-husband.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/divorcee-slapped-with-record-setting-552k-sanction-in-custody-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State Justices Overturn Another Death Sentence</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-justices-overturn-another-death-sentence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-justices-overturn-another-death-sentence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court-said]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fourth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[little-more]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[second-special]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-fourth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-high]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-jury]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-justices-overturn-another-death-sentence/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the fourth time in a little more than two months, the California Supreme Court has overturned a death sentence. Because the jury couldn't reach a verdict on a second special circumstances charge of torture, the high court said it was forced to reverse the sentence.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the fourth time in a little more than two months, the California Supreme Court has overturned a death sentence. Because the jury couldn&#8217;t reach a verdict on a second special circumstances charge of torture, the high court said it was forced to reverse the sentence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-justices-overturn-another-death-sentence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>O&#8217;Melveny Beats Back Sucessor Liability Claim Against BofA in Countrywide MBS Suit</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/omelveny-beats-back-sucessor-liability-claim-against-bofa-in-countrywide-mbs-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/omelveny-beats-back-sucessor-liability-claim-against-bofa-in-countrywide-mbs-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[countrywide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court-judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[effort-yet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-district]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[successor-liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-face]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-hook]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/omelveny-beats-back-sucessor-liability-claim-against-bofa-in-countrywide-mbs-suit/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the face of the most comprehensive effort yet to keep Bank of America on the hook for alleged fraud in a Countrywide mortgage-backed securities case, a California federal district court judge has rejected Allstate's successor liability claim against BofA.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the face of the most comprehensive effort yet to keep Bank of America on the hook for alleged fraud in a Countrywide mortgage-backed securities case, a California federal district court judge has rejected Allstate&#8217;s successor liability claim against BofA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/omelveny-beats-back-sucessor-liability-claim-against-bofa-in-countrywide-mbs-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alsup Rips Google Lawyers for Missing Deadline in Oracle Patent Suit</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/alsup-rips-google-lawyers-for-missing-deadline-in-oracle-patent-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/alsup-rips-google-lawyers-for-missing-deadline-in-oracle-patent-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 07:49:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[issues-at-trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge-even]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge-took]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oracle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[position-aimed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[provide-notification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[some-patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-suit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/alsup-rips-google-lawyers-for-missing-deadline-in-oracle-patent-suit/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A California judge took after Google's lawyers Tuesday for breaking rules aimed at streamlining patent-marking issues at trial. The judge even threatened to take away a key Google defense: the argument that Oracle didn't mark, or provide notification of, some patents in the suit, a position aimed at limiting exposure for past damages.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A California judge took after Google&#8217;s lawyers Tuesday for breaking rules aimed at streamlining patent-marking issues at trial. The judge even threatened to take away a key Google defense: the argument that Oracle didn&#8217;t mark, or provide notification of, some patents in the suit, a position aimed at limiting exposure for past damages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/alsup-rips-google-lawyers-for-missing-deadline-in-oracle-patent-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lawyer Sued Over YouTube Video Can&#8217;t Fight Back With Anti-SLAPP Law</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/lawyer-sued-over-youtube-video-cant-fight-back-with-anti-slapp-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/lawyer-sued-over-youtube-video-cant-fight-back-with-anti-slapp-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:15:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clarke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class-action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation-suit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[message]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opened-himself]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ropers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ropers-majeski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-medium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thomas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thomas-clarke]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/lawyer-sued-over-youtube-video-cant-fight-back-with-anti-slapp-law/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's the medium, not the message, that did in Ropers Majeski partner Thomas Clarke Jr. A California appeal court has ruled that, by posting a YouTube video in which he solicited plaintiffs for a class action, Clarke opened himself up to a defamation suit and can't use the state's anti-SLAPP law to ward it off.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s the medium, not the message, that did in Ropers Majeski partner Thomas Clarke Jr. A California appeal court has ruled that, by posting a YouTube video in which he solicited plaintiffs for a class action, Clarke opened himself up to a defamation suit and can&#8217;t use the state&#8217;s anti-SLAPP law to ward it off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/lawyer-sued-over-youtube-video-cant-fight-back-with-anti-slapp-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lead-off Toyota case selected as group demands NHTSA records</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/lead-off-toyota-case-selected-as-group-demands-nhtsa-records/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/lead-off-toyota-case-selected-as-group-demands-nhtsa-records/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:20:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[against-the-national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation-over]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national-highway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prius]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safety-research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seeking-data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[toyota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[traffic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[traffic-safety]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/lead-off-toyota-case-selected-as-group-demands-nhtsa-records/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A California judge has selected the first bellwether case against Toyota in consolidated litigation over sudden, unintended acceleration. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A California judge has selected the first bellwether case against Toyota in consolidated litigation over sudden, unintended acceleration. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/lead-off-toyota-case-selected-as-group-demands-nhtsa-records/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Foes of &#8216;Pay for Delay&#8217; Drug Settlements Turn to State&#8217;s High Court</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/foes-of-pay-for-delay-drug-settlements-turn-to-states-high-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/foes-of-pay-for-delay-drug-settlements-turn-to-states-high-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:57:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers-challenging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost-consumers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug-settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[generic-medicines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent-holders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[potential]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[practice-estimated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-potential]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violate-antitrust]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/foes-of-pay-for-delay-drug-settlements-turn-to-states-high-court/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A class of consumers challenging "pay for delay" drug settlements is asking California's Supreme Court to find that pharmaceutical patent holders violate antitrust laws when they pay competitors to put off the potential release of generic medicines -- a practice estimated to cost consumers $3.5 billion a year in inflated prices.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A class of consumers challenging &#8220;pay for delay&#8221; drug settlements is asking California&#8217;s Supreme Court to find that pharmaceutical patent holders violate antitrust laws when they pay competitors to put off the potential release of generic medicines &#8212; a practice estimated to cost consumers $3.5 billion a year in inflated prices.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/foes-of-pay-for-delay-drug-settlements-turn-to-states-high-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court trims California slaughterhouse law</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-trims-california-slaughterhouse-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-trims-california-slaughterhouse-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:57:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[major-victory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meat-industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[operation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pre-empts-efforts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[require-humane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-trims-california-slaughterhouse-law/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a major victory for the meat industry, a unanimous Supreme Court decided Monday that the federal law governing the operation of slaughterhouses pre-empts efforts by California and other states to require humane treatment of "downer" or nonambulatory pigs.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a major victory for the meat industry, a unanimous Supreme Court decided Monday that the federal law governing the operation of slaughterhouses pre-empts efforts by California and other states to require humane treatment of &#8220;downer&#8221; or nonambulatory pigs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-trims-california-slaughterhouse-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Company must defend claims that it illegally sought customers&#8217; ZIP codes</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/company-must-defend-claims-that-it-illegally-sought-customers-zip-codes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/company-must-defend-claims-that-it-illegally-sought-customers-zip-codes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:40:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brookstone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[code-during]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[codes-were]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credit-card]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal-identification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-first]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zip]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/company-must-defend-claims-that-it-illegally-sought-customers-zip-codes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A California appeal court has reinstated a suit by a woman who claimed that a Brookstone store illegally asked for her ZIP code during a credit card transaction. The ruling is the first to retrospectively apply a state Supreme Court decision that found ZIP codes were "personal identification information."]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A California appeal court has reinstated a suit by a woman who claimed that a Brookstone store illegally asked for her ZIP code during a credit card transaction. The ruling is the first to retrospectively apply a state Supreme Court decision that found ZIP codes were &#8220;personal identification information.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/company-must-defend-claims-that-it-illegally-sought-customers-zip-codes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal crackdown continues against marijuana dispensaries</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-crackdown-continues-against-marijuana-dispensaries/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-crackdown-continues-against-marijuana-dispensaries/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:46:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[continuing-crackdown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[four-more]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marijuana-dispensaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[permits-marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shut-down]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[southern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[substances]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-crackdown-continues-against-marijuana-dispensaries/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Federal prosecutors, in a continuing crackdown against California's marijuana dispensaries, have filed four more suits to shut down stores in Southern California. The move was part of a push to enforce the U.S. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Federal prosecutors, in a continuing crackdown against California&#8217;s marijuana dispensaries, have filed four more suits to shut down stores in Southern California. The move was part of a push to enforce the U.S. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-crackdown-continues-against-marijuana-dispensaries/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>High Court to Revisit Medical Marijuana Cases</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/high-court-to-revisit-medical-marijuana-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/high-court-to-revisit-medical-marijuana-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:10:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[addressing-cities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision-over]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[granting-review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal-morass]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[over-medical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulate-pot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[separate-marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skunky-smell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two-rulings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/high-court-to-revisit-medical-marijuana-cases/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The California Supreme Court has waded into a legal morass over medical marijuana, granting review of two rulings addressing cities' efforts to regulate pot dispensaries. In a separate marijuana case, the court agreed to review a decision over whether a skunky smell is enough to warrant a search.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The California Supreme Court has waded into a legal morass over medical marijuana, granting review of two rulings addressing cities&#8217; efforts to regulate pot dispensaries. In a separate marijuana case, the court agreed to review a decision over whether a skunky smell is enough to warrant a search.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/high-court-to-revisit-medical-marijuana-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mayer Brown Convinces Ninth Circuit to Decertify Class in False Advertising Suit Against Honda</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/mayer-brown-convinces-ninth-circuit-to-decertify-class-in-false-advertising-suit-against-honda/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/mayer-brown-convinces-ninth-circuit-to-decertify-class-in-false-advertising-suit-against-honda/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class-action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[honda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nationwide-false]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[other-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[permit-class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[split-9th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[too-different]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/mayer-brown-convinces-ninth-circuit-to-decertify-class-in-false-advertising-suit-against-honda/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A split 9th Circuit panel has decertified a nationwide false advertising class action against Honda's U.S. subsidiary, ruling that California's consumer protection law is too different from those in other states to permit class litigation.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A split 9th Circuit panel has decertified a nationwide false advertising class action against Honda&#8217;s U.S. subsidiary, ruling that California&#8217;s consumer protection law is too different from those in other states to permit class litigation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/mayer-brown-convinces-ninth-circuit-to-decertify-class-in-false-advertising-suit-against-honda/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who gets to take the first crack at Toyota?</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/who-gets-to-take-the-first-crack-at-toyota/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/who-gets-to-take-the-first-crack-at-toyota/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:46:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[angeles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[angeles-county]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[been-posited]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ellwethers-on-jan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[over-alleged]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[superior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-motions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[toyota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trials]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/who-gets-to-take-the-first-crack-at-toyota/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So far, 11 cases have been posited for potential bellwether trials in the California state litigation over alleged sudden acceleration in Toyota vehicles. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So far, 11 cases have been posited for potential bellwether trials in the California state litigation over alleged sudden acceleration in Toyota vehicles. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/who-gets-to-take-the-first-crack-at-toyota/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State Bar Bites Back in Stephen Glass Case</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-bar-bites-back-in-stephen-glass-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-bar-bites-back-in-stephen-glass-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 06:47:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conscience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disgraced]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[examiners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[latest-pitch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[repair-the-damage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shocked-the-conscience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stephen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stephen-glass]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-bar-bites-back-in-stephen-glass-case/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Responding to Stephen Glass' latest pitch for admission to the Bar, the California State Bar Committee of Bar Examiners wrote that the disgraced journalist's "serial lies shocked the conscience of ... the American public, and applicant has done little, if anything, to repair the damage he has done."]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Responding to Stephen Glass&#8217; latest pitch for admission to the Bar, the California State Bar Committee of Bar Examiners wrote that the disgraced journalist&#8217;s &#8220;serial lies shocked the conscience of &#8230; the American public, and applicant has done little, if anything, to repair the damage he has done.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-bar-bites-back-in-stephen-glass-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court: Juvenile Suspect Who Asked for Mom Didn&#8217;t Invoke Miranda Rights</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/supreme-court-juvenile-suspect-who-asked-for-mom-didnt-invoke-miranda-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/supreme-court-juvenile-suspect-who-asked-for-mom-didnt-invoke-miranda-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 06:47:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[argued-the-interrogation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[been-stopped]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defendant-argued]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[his-mother]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interrogation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[miranda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mother]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police-interrogation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-interrogation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/supreme-court-juvenile-suspect-who-asked-for-mom-didnt-invoke-miranda-rights/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A 15-year-old who repeatedly asked to speak to his mother during a police interrogation didn't invoke his Miranda right, the California Supreme Court has ruled. The defendant argued the interrogation should have been stopped, but the high court said he had to be clear he wanted a lawyer.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A 15-year-old who repeatedly asked to speak to his mother during a police interrogation didn&#8217;t invoke his Miranda right, the California Supreme Court has ruled. The defendant argued the interrogation should have been stopped, but the high court said he had to be clear he wanted a lawyer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/supreme-court-juvenile-suspect-who-asked-for-mom-didnt-invoke-miranda-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>High Court Rules for Manufacturers in Asbestos Case</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/high-court-rules-for-manufacturers-in-asbestos-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/high-court-rules-for-manufacturers-in-asbestos-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:56:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asbestos-case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broad-rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[from-liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plaintiffs-were]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[potential-avenue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protected-manufacturers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strict-products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thursday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unanimous-court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/high-court-rules-for-manufacturers-in-asbestos-case/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The California Supreme Court protected manufacturers from liability in a high-stakes asbestos case Thursday, foreclosing a potential avenue of recovery for plaintiffs. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The California Supreme Court protected manufacturers from liability in a high-stakes asbestos case Thursday, foreclosing a potential avenue of recovery for plaintiffs. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/high-court-rules-for-manufacturers-in-asbestos-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State High Court Overturns Second Death Sentence in a Month</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month-3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:03:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death-judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fully-formed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge-shouldn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-second]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial-court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month-3/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the second time in about a month, the California Supreme Court has thrown out a death judgment, ruling that a trial court judge shouldn't have excused a juror just because she hadn't fully formed an opinion on the death penalty.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the second time in about a month, the California Supreme Court has thrown out a death judgment, ruling that a trial court judge shouldn&#8217;t have excused a juror just because she hadn&#8217;t fully formed an opinion on the death penalty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State High Court Overturns Second Death Sentence in a Month</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month-3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:03:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death-judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge-shouldn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-second]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial-court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month-3/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the second time in about a month, the California Supreme Court has thrown out a death judgment, ruling that a trial court judge shouldn't have excused a juror just because she hadn't fully formed an opinion on the death penalty.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the second time in about a month, the California Supreme Court has thrown out a death judgment, ruling that a trial court judge shouldn&#8217;t have excused a juror just because she hadn&#8217;t fully formed an opinion on the death penalty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State High Court Overturns Second Death Sentence in a Month</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:03:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death-judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fully-formed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge-shouldn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-second]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial-court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the second time in about a month, the California Supreme Court has thrown out a death judgment, ruling that a trial court judge shouldn't have excused a juror just because she hadn't fully formed an opinion on the death penalty.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the second time in about a month, the California Supreme Court has thrown out a death judgment, ruling that a trial court judge shouldn&#8217;t have excused a juror just because she hadn&#8217;t fully formed an opinion on the death penalty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State High Court Overturns Second Death Sentence in a Month</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:03:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death-judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fully-formed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge-shouldn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-second]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial-court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the second time in about a month, the California Supreme Court has thrown out a death judgment, ruling that a trial court judge shouldn't have excused a juror just because she hadn't fully formed an opinion on the death penalty.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the second time in about a month, the California Supreme Court has thrown out a death judgment, ruling that a trial court judge shouldn&#8217;t have excused a juror just because she hadn&#8217;t fully formed an opinion on the death penalty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/state-high-court-overturns-second-death-sentence-in-a-month-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge Won&#8217;t Certify Class Over Google&#8217;s AdWords Program</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/judge-wont-certify-class-over-googles-adwords-program/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/judge-wont-certify-class-over-googles-adwords-program/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 04:19:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[action-alleging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[another-key]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawsuit-challenging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[purported-class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thursday]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/judge-wont-certify-class-over-googles-adwords-program/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google has won another key victory in a lawsuit challenging its AdWords keyword advertising program. A California federal judge on Thursday -- relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's Wal-Mart ruling -- declined to certify a purported class action alleging deceptive and unfair advertising.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google has won another key victory in a lawsuit challenging its AdWords keyword advertising program. A California federal judge on Thursday &#8212; relying on the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s Wal-Mart ruling &#8212; declined to certify a purported class action alleging deceptive and unfair advertising.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/judge-wont-certify-class-over-googles-adwords-program/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

