<?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; court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.the-legal-book.com/tag/court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com</link>
	<description>Legal product guide</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:16:23 +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>Prop 8 Merits Ruling Will Be Issued Tuesday</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/prop-8-merits-ruling-will-be-issued-tuesday/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/prop-8-merits-ruling-will-be-issued-tuesday/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:16:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals-on-tuesday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitutionality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay-rights-corners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[its-much-anticipated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-constitutionality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-mood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tuesday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[undeniably-optimistic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[will-release]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/prop-8-merits-ruling-will-be-issued-tuesday/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 9th U.S. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 9th U.S. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/prop-8-merits-ruling-will-be-issued-tuesday/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No SOX protection for whistleblowers working for contractors of public companies</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/no-sox-protection-for-whistleblowers-working-for-contractors-of-public-companies/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/no-sox-protection-for-whistleblowers-working-for-contractors-of-public-companies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:16:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[majority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rogeriee-thompson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[split-panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-1st]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[under-the-sarbanes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/no-sox-protection-for-whistleblowers-working-for-contractors-of-public-companies/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Employees of privately held contractors or subcontractors of public companies are not eligible for whistleblower protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a split panel of the 1st U.S. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Employees of privately held contractors or subcontractors of public companies are not eligible for whistleblower protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a split panel of the 1st U.S. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/no-sox-protection-for-whistleblowers-working-for-contractors-of-public-companies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Generic Drugmakers Settle Class Action Over Antidepressants</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/generic-drugmakers-settle-class-action-over-antidepressants/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/generic-drugmakers-settle-class-action-over-antidepressants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class-action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[landmark-ruling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pliva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[popular-antidepressant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-brand-name]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[their-version]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two-generic]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/generic-drugmakers-settle-class-action-over-antidepressants/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Less than a year after the U.S. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Less than a year after the U.S. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/generic-drugmakers-settle-class-action-over-antidepressants/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>Wolf Block Asks Justices to Review Ex-Partner&#8217;s Lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/wolf-block-asks-justices-to-review-ex-partners-lawsuit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/wolf-block-asks-justices-to-review-ex-partners-lawsuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:40:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agreement-mandating]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appellate-panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asked-the-pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[block]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[former-partner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[his-day]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[michael]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[michael-budin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[never-signed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seeking-severance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/wolf-block-asks-justices-to-review-ex-partners-lawsuit/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wolf Block has asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to decide if a case by a former partner seeking severance payments can be removed to confidential arbitration. An appellate panel found ex-partner Michael Budin never signed a partnership agreement mandating arbitration and can therefore have his day in court.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wolf Block has asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to decide if a case by a former partner seeking severance payments can be removed to confidential arbitration. An appellate panel found ex-partner Michael Budin never signed a partnership agreement mandating arbitration and can therefore have his day in court.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/wolf-block-asks-justices-to-review-ex-partners-lawsuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amex Again Loses Bid to Enforce Waiver</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/amex-again-loses-bid-to-enforce-waiver/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/amex-again-loses-bid-to-enforce-waiver/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class-action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fresh-case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keeps-coming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[same-answer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-2nd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[three-years]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/amex-again-loses-bid-to-enforce-waiver/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a case that has returned twice in three years because of fresh case law from the U.S. Supreme Court, the 2nd Circuit keeps coming up with the same answer: A class action waiver provision in American Express contracts with merchants is unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a case that has returned twice in three years because of fresh case law from the U.S. Supreme Court, the 2nd Circuit keeps coming up with the same answer: A class action waiver provision in American Express contracts with merchants is unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/amex-again-loses-bid-to-enforce-waiver/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Citing Morrison (and Surprising No One), N.Y. Judge Tosses Securities Claims by Individual Vivendi Shareholders</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/citing-morrison-and-surprising-no-one-n-y-judge-tosses-securities-claims-by-individual-vivendi-shareholders/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/citing-morrison-and-surprising-no-one-n-y-judge-tosses-securities-claims-by-individual-vivendi-shareholders/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 07:40:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morrison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plaintiffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[silver-lining]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-claims]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/citing-morrison-and-surprising-no-one-n-y-judge-tosses-securities-claims-by-individual-vivendi-shareholders/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal judge has dismissed individual investors' securities claims against Vivendi related to ordinary shares they purchased on the Paris Bourse, finding that the claims are barred by the U.S. Supreme Court's Morrison decision]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal judge has dismissed individual investors&#8217; securities claims against Vivendi related to ordinary shares they purchased on the Paris Bourse, finding that the claims are barred by the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s Morrison decision</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/citing-morrison-and-surprising-no-one-n-y-judge-tosses-securities-claims-by-individual-vivendi-shareholders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Divided Circuit Upholds Sentencing Enhancements in Sex Conviction</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/divided-circuit-upholds-sentencing-enhancements-in-sex-conviction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/divided-circuit-upholds-sentencing-enhancements-in-sex-conviction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:15:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appropriately-assessed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assessed-three]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divided-panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[girl-online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[his-age]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual-rendezvous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-2nd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two-level-sentencing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/divided-circuit-upholds-sentencing-enhancements-in-sex-conviction/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A man who enticed a 15-year-old girl online, lied to her about his age, went to Connecticut for a sexual rendezvous and then brought her to New York for more sex was appropriately assessed three two-level sentencing enhancements, a divided panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A man who enticed a 15-year-old girl online, lied to her about his age, went to Connecticut for a sexual rendezvous and then brought her to New York for more sex was appropriately assessed three two-level sentencing enhancements, a divided panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/divided-circuit-upholds-sentencing-enhancements-in-sex-conviction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another Bite At the Apple: Inventor Sues His Former Lawyers for a Second Time</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/another-bite-at-the-apple-inventor-sues-his-former-lawyers-for-a-second-time/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/another-bite-at-the-apple-inventor-sues-his-former-lawyers-for-a-second-time/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:15:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[100-million]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decade-ago]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[his-former]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligence-suit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas-supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-wake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wake]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/another-bite-at-the-apple-inventor-sues-his-former-lawyers-for-a-second-time/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the wake of a Texas Supreme Court opinion, an inventor is seeking to revive his $100 million suit against his former lawyers. Vernon F. Minton, who lost a state court malpractice suit against lawyers who represented him a decade ago, has filed a negligence suit in federal court.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the wake of a Texas Supreme Court opinion, an inventor is seeking to revive his $100 million suit against his former lawyers. Vernon F. Minton, who lost a state court malpractice suit against lawyers who represented him a decade ago, has filed a negligence suit in federal court.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/another-bite-at-the-apple-inventor-sues-his-former-lawyers-for-a-second-time/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Fails to Communicate Effectively to Public, Law Scholar Argues</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/supreme-court-fails-to-communicate-effectively-to-public-law-scholar-argues/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/supreme-court-fails-to-communicate-effectively-to-public-law-scholar-argues/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:15:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[erwin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[extends-beyond]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[its-oral]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law-dean]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stubborn-resistance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/supreme-court-fails-to-communicate-effectively-to-public-law-scholar-argues/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court is guilty of a broad "failure to communicate" to the public it serves, constitutional scholar and law dean Erwin Chemerinsky said at a symposium Friday. And this failure extends beyond the Court's stubborn resistance to allowing camera coverage of its oral arguments, he said.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court is guilty of a broad &#8220;failure to communicate&#8221; to the public it serves, constitutional scholar and law dean Erwin Chemerinsky said at a symposium Friday. And this failure extends beyond the Court&#8217;s stubborn resistance to allowing camera coverage of its oral arguments, he said.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/supreme-court-fails-to-communicate-effectively-to-public-law-scholar-argues/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Switch in Arbitrator Permissible Where NAF No Longer Competent, Circuit Says</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/switch-in-arbitrator-permissible-where-naf-no-longer-competent-circuit-says/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/switch-in-arbitrator-permissible-where-naf-no-longer-competent-circuit-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:22:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contract-clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hear-the-case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[may-appoint]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national-arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[not-able]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[one-designated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[substitute-arbitrator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-3rd]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/switch-in-arbitrator-permissible-where-naf-no-longer-competent-circuit-says/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Courts may appoint a substitute arbitrator where the one designated in a contract clause -- the National Arbitration Forum -- is not able to hear the case, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held in a case of first impression.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Courts may appoint a substitute arbitrator where the one designated in a contract clause &#8212; the National Arbitration Forum &#8212; is not able to hear the case, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held in a case of first impression.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/switch-in-arbitrator-permissible-where-naf-no-longer-competent-circuit-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>1st Circuit affirms awards against U.S. over Bulger gang murders</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/1st-circuit-affirms-awards-against-u-s-over-bulger-gang-murders/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/1st-circuit-affirms-awards-against-u-s-over-bulger-gang-murders/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:59:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[steve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[steve-flemmi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-families]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victims-killed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[whitey-bulger]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/1st-circuit-affirms-awards-against-u-s-over-bulger-gang-murders/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a pair of rulings, the 1st U.S. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a pair of rulings, the 1st U.S. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/1st-circuit-affirms-awards-against-u-s-over-bulger-gang-murders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Circuit Applies Insider Rules to Partners Who Cede Control</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/circuit-applies-insider-rules-to-partners-who-cede-control/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/circuit-applies-insider-rules-to-partners-who-cede-control/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:59:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insider-trading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment-control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities-portfolios]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[still-considered]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[their-general]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/circuit-applies-insider-rules-to-partners-who-cede-control/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Limited partnerships that delegate voting and investment control over their securities portfolios to their general partners' agents are still considered insiders for purposes of insider trading liability, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Limited partnerships that delegate voting and investment control over their securities portfolios to their general partners&#8217; agents are still considered insiders for purposes of insider trading liability, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/circuit-applies-insider-rules-to-partners-who-cede-control/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ecuador Update: Another Door Shuts, Another Door Opens, and Chevron Lists Its Law Firms</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/ecuador-update-another-door-shuts-another-door-opens-and-chevron-lists-its-law-firms/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/ecuador-update-another-door-shuts-another-door-opens-and-chevron-lists-its-law-firms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:05:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ecuadorian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[friday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[friday-chevron]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[its-appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[its-pinstriped]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[persuade-the-2nd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-oil]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/ecuador-update-another-door-shuts-another-door-opens-and-chevron-lists-its-law-firms/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Chevron failed to persuade the 2nd Circuit to reconsider the court's refusal to enjoin Ecuadorian plaintiffs from enforcing an $18 billion judgment. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chevron failed to persuade the 2nd Circuit to reconsider the court&#8217;s refusal to enjoin Ecuadorian plaintiffs from enforcing an $18 billion judgment. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/ecuador-update-another-door-shuts-another-door-opens-and-chevron-lists-its-law-firms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Occupy the Courts&#8217; Protests Hit Supreme Court and Federal Courthouses Nationwide</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/occupy-the-courts-protests-hit-supreme-court-and-federal-courthouses-nationwide/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/occupy-the-courts-protests-hit-supreme-court-and-federal-courthouses-nationwide/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:40:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens-united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-courthouses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[friday-demonstrators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[its-campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massed-at-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movement-took]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police-barricade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protest-the-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pushed-through]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-federal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/occupy-the-courts-protests-hit-supreme-court-and-federal-courthouses-nationwide/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Occupy movement took its campaign against corporate domination to the federal judiciary Friday. Demonstrators pushed through a police barricade and stormed the U.S. Supreme Court building, while others massed at federal courthouses nationwide to protest the Court's 2010 Citizens United decision.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Occupy movement took its campaign against corporate domination to the federal judiciary Friday. Demonstrators pushed through a police barricade and stormed the U.S. Supreme Court building, while others massed at federal courthouses nationwide to protest the Court&#8217;s 2010 Citizens United decision.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/occupy-the-courts-protests-hit-supreme-court-and-federal-courthouses-nationwide/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pfizer Seeks MDL for Zoloft Birth Defect Cases</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/pfizer-seeks-mdl-for-zoloft-birth-defect-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/pfizer-seeks-mdl-for-zoloft-birth-defect-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:33:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defendants-seeking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[district-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eastern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eastern-district]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[latest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pfizer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-latest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/pfizer-seeks-mdl-for-zoloft-birth-defect-cases/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the latest volley by pharmaceutical defendants seeking alternative forums to Pennsylvania state court, drugmaker Pfizer has asked that almost 50 cases that have been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania be consolidated into one multidistrict litigation.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the latest volley by pharmaceutical defendants seeking alternative forums to Pennsylvania state court, drugmaker Pfizer has asked that almost 50 cases that have been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania be consolidated into one multidistrict litigation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/pfizer-seeks-mdl-for-zoloft-birth-defect-cases/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>New Study: Delaware Chancery&#8217;s Market Share of M&amp;A Cases Slipping, But Court Still Getting Quality Cases</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/new-study-delaware-chancerys-market-share-of-ma-cases-slipping-but-court-still-getting-quality-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/new-study-delaware-chancerys-market-share-of-ma-cases-slipping-but-court-still-getting-quality-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 05:33:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[delaware-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[huge-jump]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation-slipping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new-academic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[number]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[onto-most]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[still-holding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strongest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suits-filed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-number]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-strongest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-study]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/new-study-delaware-chancerys-market-share-of-ma-cases-slipping-but-court-still-getting-quality-cases/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is the Delaware Court of Chancery's market share of M&#038;A litigation slipping? Yes, according to a new academic study, which found a huge jump in the number of suits filed in multiple jurisdictions. But the court is still holding onto most of the strongest cases, the study indicates.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is the Delaware Court of Chancery&#8217;s market share of M&#038;A litigation slipping? Yes, according to a new academic study, which found a huge jump in the number of suits filed in multiple jurisdictions. But the court is still holding onto most of the strongest cases, the study indicates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/new-study-delaware-chancerys-market-share-of-ma-cases-slipping-but-court-still-getting-quality-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge Sticks to Ruling Refusing to Order Arbitration in Wage Suit</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/judge-sticks-to-ruling-refusing-to-order-arbitration-in-wage-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/judge-sticks-to-ruling-refusing-to-order-arbitration-in-wage-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 05:33:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class-action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ernst]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[individual-plaintiff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[llc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mobility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overtime-claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-wake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[young]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/judge-sticks-to-ruling-refusing-to-order-arbitration-in-wage-suit/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A New York federal judge has rejected Ernst &#038; Young's claims that an individual plaintiff is required to arbitrate her overtime claims individually instead of through a class action in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in AT&#038;T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A New York federal judge has rejected Ernst &#038; Young&#8217;s claims that an individual plaintiff is required to arbitrate her overtime claims individually instead of through a class action in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s holding in AT&#038;T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/judge-sticks-to-ruling-refusing-to-order-arbitration-in-wage-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court approves act extending copyrights to foreign works previously in public domain</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-approves-act-extending-copyrights-to-foreign-works-previously-in-public-domain/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-approves-act-extending-copyrights-to-foreign-works-previously-in-public-domain/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 05:33:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[access-before]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright-protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enjoyed-free]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign-works]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[from-extending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rejecting-arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ruled-on-wednesday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wednesday]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-approves-act-extending-copyrights-to-foreign-works-previously-in-public-domain/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Constitution did not bar Congress from extending copyright protection to previously free foreign works, rejecting arguments by musicians, conductors, publishers and others who enjoyed free access before Congress acted in 1994.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Constitution did not bar Congress from extending copyright protection to previously free foreign works, rejecting arguments by musicians, conductors, publishers and others who enjoyed free access before Congress acted in 1994.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-approves-act-extending-copyrights-to-foreign-works-previously-in-public-domain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Comments at Attorney Meeting Privileged; Slander Case Tossed</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/comments-at-attorney-meeting-privileged-slander-case-tossed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/comments-at-attorney-meeting-privileged-slander-case-tossed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 06:47:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[because-the-meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case-did]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harsh-words]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opposing-attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privileged-part]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shared-between]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[superior-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-judicial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/comments-at-attorney-meeting-privileged-slander-case-tossed/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some harsh words shared between opposing attorneys at a meeting to discuss a case did not rise to defamation, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled, because the meeting was a privileged part of the judicial record in the case.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some harsh words shared between opposing attorneys at a meeting to discuss a case did not rise to defamation, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled, because the meeting was a privileged part of the judicial record in the case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/comments-at-attorney-meeting-privileged-slander-case-tossed/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>At Three-Year Mark, Obama Lags Behind Bush in Judicial Nominations, Study Finds</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/at-three-year-mark-obama-lags-behind-bush-in-judicial-nominations-study-finds/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/at-three-year-mark-obama-lags-behind-bush-in-judicial-nominations-study-finds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 06:47:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brookings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brookings-institution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[district-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president-barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president-george]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/at-three-year-mark-obama-lags-behind-bush-in-judicial-nominations-study-finds/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Despite increasing his pace of U.S. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Despite increasing his pace of U.S. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/at-three-year-mark-obama-lags-behind-bush-in-judicial-nominations-study-finds/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>O.C. Judge Removed from Bench for Fixing Tickets</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/o-c-judge-removed-from-bench-for-fixing-tickets/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/o-c-judge-removed-from-bench-for-fixing-tickets/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:39:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[27-year-jurist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fixed-traffic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[friends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[from-the-orange]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[his-friends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge-richard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orange]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orange-county]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[richard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[superior-court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/o-c-judge-removed-from-bench-for-fixing-tickets/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A 27-year jurist has been booted from the Orange County bench after a judicial performance commission concluded that he fixed traffic tickets for his friends and son-in-law. Superior Court Judge Richard Stanford Jr. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A 27-year jurist has been booted from the Orange County bench after a judicial performance commission concluded that he fixed traffic tickets for his friends and son-in-law. Superior Court Judge Richard Stanford Jr. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/o-c-judge-removed-from-bench-for-fixing-tickets/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

