<?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; federal-appeals</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.the-legal-book.com/tag/federal-appeals/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>Unanimous high court finds for church in EEOC fight</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/unanimous-high-court-finds-for-church-in-eeoc-fight/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/unanimous-high-court-finds-for-church-in-eeoc-fight/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:26:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[given-its]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government-must]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[long-recognized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ruling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[some-form]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-ruling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/unanimous-high-court-finds-for-church-in-eeoc-fight/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A surprisingly unanimous Supreme Court on Wednesday endorsed a "ministerial exception" to employment discrimination laws, asserting that, under the First Amendment, government must keep its nose out of the hiring and firing of clergy. All 12 federal appeals courts have long recognized some form of ministerial exception, but the Supreme Court had not given its imprimatur until now. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A surprisingly unanimous Supreme Court on Wednesday endorsed a &#8220;ministerial exception&#8221; to employment discrimination laws, asserting that, under the First Amendment, government must keep its nose out of the hiring and firing of clergy. All 12 federal appeals courts have long recognized some form of ministerial exception, but the Supreme Court had not given its imprimatur until now. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/unanimous-high-court-finds-for-church-in-eeoc-fight/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unanimous high court finds for church in EEOC fight</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/unanimous-high-court-finds-for-church-in-eeoc-fight-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/unanimous-high-court-finds-for-church-in-eeoc-fight-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:26:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[given-its]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government-must]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hiring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberty-case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[long-recognized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ruling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[some-form]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-hiring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-ruling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[under-the-first]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wednesday]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/unanimous-high-court-finds-for-church-in-eeoc-fight-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A surprisingly unanimous Supreme Court on Wednesday endorsed a "ministerial exception" to employment discrimination laws, asserting that, under the First Amendment, government must keep its nose out of the hiring and firing of clergy. All 12 federal appeals courts have long recognized some form of ministerial exception, but the Supreme Court had not given its imprimatur until now. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A surprisingly unanimous Supreme Court on Wednesday endorsed a &#8220;ministerial exception&#8221; to employment discrimination laws, asserting that, under the First Amendment, government must keep its nose out of the hiring and firing of clergy. All 12 federal appeals courts have long recognized some form of ministerial exception, but the Supreme Court had not given its imprimatur until now. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/unanimous-high-court-finds-for-church-in-eeoc-fight-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Birther&#8217; Claims Rejected by Ninth Circuit</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/birther-claims-rejected-by-ninth-circuit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/birther-claims-rejected-by-ninth-circuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:48:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court-held]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new-blow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panel-rejected]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plaintiffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president-were]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[serve-as-president]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/birther-claims-rejected-by-ninth-circuit/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Birthers" who argue that President Obama wasn't born in the U.S. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Birthers&#8221; who argue that President Obama wasn&#8217;t born in the U.S. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/birther-claims-rejected-by-ninth-circuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Second Circuit Upholds City Law Restricting Political Donations</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/second-circuit-upholds-city-law-restricting-political-donations/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/second-circuit-upholds-city-law-restricting-political-donations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:12:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[city]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[city-does]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doing-business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[due-process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greatly-restricts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[not-violate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech-or-due]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-free]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/second-circuit-upholds-city-law-restricting-political-donations/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A New York City law that greatly restricts campaign contributions from lobbyists and others doing business with the city does not violate the free speech or due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals panel has held in a matter that could be destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A New York City law that greatly restricts campaign contributions from lobbyists and others doing business with the city does not violate the free speech or due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals panel has held in a matter that could be destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/second-circuit-upholds-city-law-restricting-political-donations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Edward DuMont asks Obama to withdraw his nomination to Federal Circuit</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/edward-dumont-asks-obama-to-withdraw-his-nomination-to-federal-circuit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/edward-dumont-asks-obama-to-withdraw-his-nomination-to-federal-circuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:03:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[been-the-first]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nomination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[openly-gay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pickering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pickering-hale]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wilmer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wilmer-cutler]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/edward-dumont-asks-obama-to-withdraw-his-nomination-to-federal-circuit/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Edward DuMont, an appellate litigation partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, has sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to withdraw his nomination to the Federal Circuit. DuMont, who would have been the first openly gay federal appeals judge, was nominated in April 2010.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Edward DuMont, an appellate litigation partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, has sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to withdraw his nomination to the Federal Circuit. DuMont, who would have been the first openly gay federal appeals judge, was nominated in April 2010.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/edward-dumont-asks-obama-to-withdraw-his-nomination-to-federal-circuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeals Court Rejects False Claims Act Complaint Against Sallie Mae</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/appeals-court-rejects-false-claims-act-complaint-against-sallie-mae/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/appeals-court-rejects-false-claims-act-complaint-against-sallie-mae/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Nov 2011 04:55:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case-tested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court-on-friday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[friday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sallie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scope]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-scope]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/appeals-court-rejects-false-claims-act-complaint-against-sallie-mae/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the dismissal of a false claims complaint against Sallie Mae, saying the suit too closely mirrors a similar complaint filed in a federal trial court in another state. The case tested the scope of the False Claims Act's "first-to-file" rule.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the dismissal of a false claims complaint against Sallie Mae, saying the suit too closely mirrors a similar complaint filed in a federal trial court in another state. The case tested the scope of the False Claims Act&#8217;s &#8220;first-to-file&#8221; rule.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/appeals-court-rejects-false-claims-act-complaint-against-sallie-mae/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>After outcry, 9th Circuit withdraws cable channel bundling ruling</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/after-outcry-9th-circuit-withdraws-cable-channel-bundling-ruling/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/after-outcry-9th-circuit-withdraws-cable-channel-bundling-ruling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 04:17:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amicus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust-law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cable-industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[called-the-opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[institute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[own-opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[upholding-the-cable]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/after-outcry-9th-circuit-withdraws-cable-channel-bundling-ruling/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court has withdrawn its own opinion upholding the cable industry's practice of bundling channels to consumers, after an array of amicus organizations showered it with petitions to reconsider. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal appeals court has withdrawn its own opinion upholding the cable industry&#8217;s practice of bundling channels to consumers, after an array of amicus organizations showered it with petitions to reconsider. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/after-outcry-9th-circuit-withdraws-cable-channel-bundling-ruling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Conviction upheld in Congressional bribery case &#8212; with a major caveat</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/conviction-upheld-in-congressional-bribery-case-with-a-major-caveat/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/conviction-upheld-in-congressional-bribery-case-with-a-major-caveat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:21:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bribing-disgraced]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contractor-on-charges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conviction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cunningham]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[door]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[former-defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open-the-door]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-door]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[upheld-the-conviction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/conviction-upheld-in-congressional-bribery-case-with-a-major-caveat/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court has upheld the conviction of a former defense contractor on charges of bribing disgraced U.S. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal appeals court has upheld the conviction of a former defense contractor on charges of bribing disgraced U.S. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/conviction-upheld-in-congressional-bribery-case-with-a-major-caveat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Viacom Urges Second Circuit to Revive YouTube Suit</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/viacom-urges-second-circuit-to-revive-youtube-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/viacom-urges-second-circuit-to-revive-youtube-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 04:01:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content-providers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright-infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court-on-tuesday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision-dooming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal-posting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[their-claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tuesday]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/viacom-urges-second-circuit-to-revive-youtube-suit/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Viacom International and a host of content providers asked a federal appeals court on Tuesday to reverse a decision dooming their claim that YouTube is liable for $1 billion in damages for copyright infringement for the illegal posting of some 79,000 copyrighted works between 2005 and 2008.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Viacom International and a host of content providers asked a federal appeals court on Tuesday to reverse a decision dooming their claim that YouTube is liable for $1 billion in damages for copyright infringement for the illegal posting of some 79,000 copyrighted works between 2005 and 2008.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/viacom-urges-second-circuit-to-revive-youtube-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>D.C. Circuit Upholds Washington Ban on Assault Rifles</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/d-c-circuit-upholds-washington-ban-on-assault-rifles/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/d-c-circuit-upholds-washington-ban-on-assault-rifles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 04:59:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assault-weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[certain-registration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitutionality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[landmark-ruling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[need-more]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sequel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[striking-down]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-sequel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/d-c-circuit-upholds-washington-ban-on-assault-rifles/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court has upheld the constitutionality of a D.C. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal appeals court has upheld the constitutionality of a D.C. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/d-c-circuit-upholds-washington-ban-on-assault-rifles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Revives Suit Claiming Newark&#8217;s Residency Rules Have Non-White Bias</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-revives-suit-claiming-newarks-residency-rules-have-non-white-bias/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-revives-suit-claiming-newarks-residency-rules-have-non-white-bias/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:04:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[city]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[granting-summary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hiring-policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge-conducted]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lower-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-city]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-revives-suit-claiming-newarks-residency-rules-have-non-white-bias/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court has reinstated a reverse-discrimination challenge to a residents-only hiring policy for city employees, finding that a lower court judge conducted a faulty analysis in granting summary judgment to the city of Newark, N.J.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal appeals court has reinstated a reverse-discrimination challenge to a residents-only hiring policy for city employees, finding that a lower court judge conducted a faulty analysis in granting summary judgment to the city of Newark, N.J.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-revives-suit-claiming-newarks-residency-rules-have-non-white-bias/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employer Can&#8217;t Short-Circuit Suit by &#8216;Picking Off&#8217; Lead Plaintiff, Panel Says</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/employer-cant-short-circuit-suit-by-picking-off-lead-plaintiff-panel-says/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/employer-cant-short-circuit-suit-by-picking-off-lead-plaintiff-panel-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2011 07:27:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[action-under]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claim-before]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor-standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lead]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-chance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[under-the-fair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/employer-cant-short-circuit-suit-by-picking-off-lead-plaintiff-panel-says/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When an employer is hit with a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, it cannot "pick off" the lead plaintiff by making an offer of judgment that moots her claim before any other workers have the chance to "opt in" to the case, a federal appeals court has ruled.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When an employer is hit with a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, it cannot &#8220;pick off&#8221; the lead plaintiff by making an offer of judgment that moots her claim before any other workers have the chance to &#8220;opt in&#8221; to the case, a federal appeals court has ruled.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/employer-cant-short-circuit-suit-by-picking-off-lead-plaintiff-panel-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>11th Circuit split 2-1 to reverse judge Alan Gold&#8217;s sanctions in Shaygan case</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/11th-circuit-split-2-1-to-reverse-judge-alan-golds-sanctions-in-shaygan-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/11th-circuit-split-2-1-to-reverse-judge-alan-golds-sanctions-in-shaygan-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:58:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assistant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[committed-prosecutorial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court-panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[district-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[due-process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[handling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge-violated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[majority-decided]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[miami]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/11th-circuit-split-2-1-to-reverse-judge-alan-golds-sanctions-in-shaygan-case/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court panel has discarded a $601,000 penalty and reversed reprimands against two Miami prosecutors over the handling of a drug case. The majority decided a district court judge violated the Assistant U.S. Attorneys' due process rights when he found they committed prosecutorial misconduct.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal appeals court panel has discarded a $601,000 penalty and reversed reprimands against two Miami prosecutors over the handling of a drug case. The majority decided a district court judge violated the Assistant U.S. Attorneys&#8217; due process rights when he found they committed prosecutorial misconduct.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/11th-circuit-split-2-1-to-reverse-judge-alan-golds-sanctions-in-shaygan-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jail Inmate Cannot Claim Privilege for Recorded Call</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/jail-inmate-cannot-claim-privilege-for-recorded-call/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/jail-inmate-cannot-claim-privilege-for-recorded-call/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:58:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[call-telling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[his-lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[his-willingness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inmate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jailhouse-phone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[not-protected]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plea-deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-inmate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[willingness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/jail-inmate-cannot-claim-privilege-for-recorded-call/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An inmate's jailhouse phone call telling relatives to relay to his lawyer his willingness to accept a plea deal is not protected by attorney-client privilege, a federal appeals panel has ruled. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An inmate&#8217;s jailhouse phone call telling relatives to relay to his lawyer his willingness to accept a plea deal is not protected by attorney-client privilege, a federal appeals panel has ruled. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/jail-inmate-cannot-claim-privilege-for-recorded-call/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>3rd Circuit Certifies Comcast Antitrust Class Action</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-certifies-comcast-antitrust-class-action/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-certifies-comcast-antitrust-class-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:08:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust-suit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cases-alleging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class-action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hold-pending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[outcome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pending-the-outcome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[philadelphia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[set-out]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-outcome]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-certifies-comcast-antitrust-class-action/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court has refused to de-certify a class action antitrust suit brought by consumers who claim Comcast set out to establish a monopoly in the Philadelphia market. Similar cases alleging Comcast tried to monopolize other markets are on hold pending the outcome of the Philadelphia case.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal appeals court has refused to de-certify a class action antitrust suit brought by consumers who claim Comcast set out to establish a monopoly in the Philadelphia market. Similar cases alleging Comcast tried to monopolize other markets are on hold pending the outcome of the Philadelphia case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-certifies-comcast-antitrust-class-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>3rd Circuit Upholds Slashing $10 Million Verdict to $900,000</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-upholds-slashing-10-million-verdict-to-900000/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-upholds-slashing-10-million-verdict-to-900000/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:59:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[because-the-plaintiffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[philadelphia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plaintiffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plaintiffs-had]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police-officers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[properly-slashed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race-discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[three-former]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[under-federal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-upholds-slashing-10-million-verdict-to-900000/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A jury's award of $10 million to three former Philadelphia police officers in a race discrimination suit was properly slashed to just $900,000, a federal appeals court has ruled, because the plaintiffs had sued only under federal law, which imposes a $300,000 cap on damages.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A jury&#8217;s award of $10 million to three former Philadelphia police officers in a race discrimination suit was properly slashed to just $900,000, a federal appeals court has ruled, because the plaintiffs had sued only under federal law, which imposes a $300,000 cap on damages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-upholds-slashing-10-million-verdict-to-900000/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harm From Exposure to Asbestos Held Presumed, So Evidence Is Not Needed</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/harm-from-exposure-to-asbestos-held-presumed-so-evidence-is-not-needed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/harm-from-exposure-to-asbestos-held-presumed-so-evidence-is-not-needed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2011 06:20:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[because-the-harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[penalize-employers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[show-workers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[substance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-substance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/harm-from-exposure-to-asbestos-held-presumed-so-evidence-is-not-needed/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The government can penalize employers for serious violations of asbestos-removal rules without having to show workers were exposed to the substance, because the harm is presumed, a federal appeals court has held in a precedential ruling.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The government can penalize employers for serious violations of asbestos-removal rules without having to show workers were exposed to the substance, because the harm is presumed, a federal appeals court has held in a precedential ruling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/harm-from-exposure-to-asbestos-held-presumed-so-evidence-is-not-needed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Circuit Shelves Freelancers&#8217; Pact With Publishers and Databases</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/circuit-shelves-freelancers-pact-with-publishers-and-databases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/circuit-shelves-freelancers-pact-with-publishers-and-databases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:29:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[all-class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class-action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court-did]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lower]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[not-represent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-lower]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thrown-out]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[writers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/circuit-shelves-freelancers-pact-with-publishers-and-databases/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court has thrown out a class action settlement between freelance writers and online publishers and databases that archived the writers' work without pay, saying that the pact approved by the lower court did not represent the interests of all class members.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal appeals court has thrown out a class action settlement between freelance writers and online publishers and databases that archived the writers&#8217; work without pay, saying that the pact approved by the lower court did not represent the interests of all class members.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/circuit-shelves-freelancers-pact-with-publishers-and-databases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>4th Circuit: Anti-retaliation provision of wage law does not cover job applicants</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/4th-circuit-anti-retaliation-provision-of-wage-law-does-not-cover-job-applicants/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/4th-circuit-anti-retaliation-provision-of-wage-law-does-not-cover-job-applicants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:05:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employer-under]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor-standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-4th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-first]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[under-the-fair]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/4th-circuit-anti-retaliation-provision-of-wage-law-does-not-cover-job-applicants/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In what is thought to be the first ruling on the issue by a federal appeals court, the 4th Circuit has held that a job applicant can't bring a retaliation lawsuit against a prospective employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In what is thought to be the first ruling on the issue by a federal appeals court, the 4th Circuit has held that a job applicant can&#8217;t bring a retaliation lawsuit against a prospective employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/4th-circuit-anti-retaliation-provision-of-wage-law-does-not-cover-job-applicants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Civil Contempt Finding In Ted Stevens Case Was Proper, Lawyer Says</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/civil-contempt-finding-in-ted-stevens-case-was-proper-lawyer-says/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/civil-contempt-finding-in-ted-stevens-case-was-proper-lawyer-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:23:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case-were]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil-contempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court-should]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[district-judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[not-disturb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[steven]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[timely-disclose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial-judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two-prosecutors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/civil-contempt-finding-in-ted-stevens-case-was-proper-lawyer-says/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court should not disturb a trial judge's finding that two prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case were in civil contempt for failing to timely disclose documents, according to Steven Goldblatt, the law professor appointed by the D.C. Circuit to represent the interests of U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal appeals court should not disturb a trial judge&#8217;s finding that two prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case were in civil contempt for failing to timely disclose documents, according to Steven Goldblatt, the law professor appointed by the D.C. Circuit to represent the interests of U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/civil-contempt-finding-in-ted-stevens-case-was-proper-lawyer-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Circuit Says &#8216;No Harm, No Standing&#8217; to Doctors&#8217; Challenge to Obamacare</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/circuit-says-no-harm-no-standing-to-doctors-challenge-to-obamacare/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/circuit-says-no-harm-no-standing-to-doctors-challenge-to-obamacare/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 03:39:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lacked-standing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plan-had]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-second]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/circuit-says-no-harm-no-standing-to-doctors-challenge-to-obamacare/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 3rd Circuit has found that doctors challenging President Obama's health care plan had suffered no injury, and so lacked standing to sue. The 3rd Circuit is the second federal appeals court to hear a challenge to the health care act. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 3rd Circuit has found that doctors challenging President Obama&#8217;s health care plan had suffered no injury, and so lacked standing to sue. The 3rd Circuit is the second federal appeals court to hear a challenge to the health care act. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/circuit-says-no-harm-no-standing-to-doctors-challenge-to-obamacare/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ex-Senator&#8217;s Criticism of Counsel in Effort to Upset Plea Rebuffed</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/ex-senators-criticism-of-counsel-in-effort-to-upset-plea-rebuffed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/ex-senators-criticism-of-counsel-in-effort-to-upset-plea-rebuffed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2011 07:55:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allegedly-made]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corruption-charges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guilty-plea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state-senator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[under-pressure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[well-known-defense]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/ex-senators-criticism-of-counsel-in-effort-to-upset-plea-rebuffed/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court has rebuffed a former New York state senator's complaint that he was not allowed to withdraw a guilty plea to corruption charges he allegedly made under pressure from a well-known defense attorney who was "incapable, unwilling and unprepared" for trial.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal appeals court has rebuffed a former New York state senator&#8217;s complaint that he was not allowed to withdraw a guilty plea to corruption charges he allegedly made under pressure from a well-known defense attorney who was &#8220;incapable, unwilling and unprepared&#8221; for trial.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/ex-senators-criticism-of-counsel-in-effort-to-upset-plea-rebuffed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court tells Obama administration to state its position regarding DADT&#8217;s constitutionality</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-tells-obama-administration-to-state-its-position-regarding-dadts-constitutionality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-tells-obama-administration-to-state-its-position-regarding-dadts-constitutionality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 06:58:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitutionality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[five-days]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motions-panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[move-came]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ordered-the-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[record]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-ban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-record]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-same]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[whether-it-intends]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-tells-obama-administration-to-state-its-position-regarding-dadts-constitutionality/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 9th Circuit has ordered the Obama administration to declare for the record whether it intends to defend the constitutionality of "don't ask, don't tell." The move came five days after a motions panel of the same federal appeals court effectively barred enforcement of the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 9th Circuit has ordered the Obama administration to declare for the record whether it intends to defend the constitutionality of &#8220;don&#8217;t ask, don&#8217;t tell.&#8221; The move came five days after a motions panel of the same federal appeals court effectively barred enforcement of the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-tells-obama-administration-to-state-its-position-regarding-dadts-constitutionality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>3rd Circuit Prevents Chevron From Taking Kohn&#8217;s Deposition</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-prevents-chevron-from-taking-kohns-deposition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-prevents-chevron-from-taking-kohns-deposition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2011 04:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[battles-between]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chevron-the-right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court-delivered]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[depose-attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ecuador]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[epic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joseph]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lower-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-epic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-right]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-prevents-chevron-from-taking-kohns-deposition/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court delivered a surprising twist in the epic series of battles between Chevron and Ecuador residents -- who won a $9 billion judgment against the company for polluting their home -- when it reversed a lower court order that gave Chevron the right to depose attorney Joseph C. Kohn.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal appeals court delivered a surprising twist in the epic series of battles between Chevron and Ecuador residents &#8212; who won a $9 billion judgment against the company for polluting their home &#8212; when it reversed a lower court order that gave Chevron the right to depose attorney Joseph C. Kohn.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-prevents-chevron-from-taking-kohns-deposition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>3rd Circuit Prevents Chevron From Taking Kohn&#8217;s Deposition</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-prevents-chevron-from-taking-kohns-deposition-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-prevents-chevron-from-taking-kohns-deposition-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2011 04:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[battles-between]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chevron-the-right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court-delivered]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[depose-attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ecuador]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[epic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joseph]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lower-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-right]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-prevents-chevron-from-taking-kohns-deposition-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court delivered a surprising twist in the epic series of battles between Chevron and Ecuador residents -- who won a $9 billion judgment against the company for polluting their home -- when it reversed a lower court order that gave Chevron the right to depose attorney Joseph C. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal appeals court delivered a surprising twist in the epic series of battles between Chevron and Ecuador residents &#8212; who won a $9 billion judgment against the company for polluting their home &#8212; when it reversed a lower court order that gave Chevron the right to depose attorney Joseph C. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-prevents-chevron-from-taking-kohns-deposition-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

