<?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>Law Advice &#187; high</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lawadvice.ws/tag/high/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws</link>
	<description>Lawful Advice for Legal Situations and Litigious Problems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 08:58:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Property disclosure ranks high among real estate legal disputes &#8211; Los Angeles Times</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/property-disclosure-ranks-high-among-real-estate-legal-disputes-los-angeles-times/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/property-disclosure-ranks-high-among-real-estate-legal-disputes-los-angeles-times/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 08:24:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[among]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Angeles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disputes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ranks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/property-disclosure-ranks-high-among-real-estate-legal-disputes-los-angeles-times/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Property disclosure ranks high among real estate legal disputesLos Angeles TimesIf the latest edition of &#34;Legal Scan&#34; tells us anything, it is that a handful of agents and brokers and their clients either don&#39;t know the law or don&#39;t care to follow it. &#34;Legal Scan&#34; is a biennial research report by the National Assn. of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="7" style="vertical-align:top;">
<tr>
<td width="80" align="center" valign="top"><font style="font-size:85%;font-family:arial,sans-serif"></font></td>
<td valign="top" class="j"><font style="font-size:85%;font-family:arial,sans-serif">
<div style="padding-top:0.8em;"><img alt="" height="1" width="1" /></div>
<div class="lh"><a target="_blank" href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&amp;fd=R&amp;usg=AFQjCNEtES2_to6F-HvGBlSj4Y48pfL7BQ&amp;url=http://feeds.latimes.com/~r/latimes/business/~3/v_J7ZuzFbYw/la-fi-lew-20120205,0,1612783.story" ><b>Property disclosure ranks high among real estate <b>legal</b> disputes</b></a><br /><font size="-1"><b><font color="#6f6f6f">Los Angeles Times</font></b></font><br /><font size="-1">If the latest edition of &quot;<b>Legal</b> Scan&quot; tells us anything, it is that a handful of agents and brokers and their clients either don&#39;t know the law or don&#39;t care to follow it. &quot;<b>Legal</b> Scan&quot; is a biennial research report by the National Assn. of Realtors.</font><br /><font size="-1" class="p"></font><br /><font class="p" size="-1"><a target="_blank" href="http://news.google.com/news/more?ncl=dGRBCdxgDOI17aM&amp;ned=us" class="p" ><nobr><b>and more&nbsp;&raquo;</b></nobr></a></font></div>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&#038;fd=R&#038;usg=AFQjCNEtES2_to6F-HvGBlSj4Y48pfL7BQ&#038;url=http://feeds.latimes.com/~r/latimes/business/~3/v_J7ZuzFbYw/la-fi-lew-20120205,0,1612783.story" >legal &#8211; Google News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/property-disclosure-ranks-high-among-real-estate-legal-disputes-los-angeles-times/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bayer Fails To Get Pennsylvania High Court To Review Forum Ruling In Yaz Litigation</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/bayer-fails-to-get-pennsylvania-high-court-to-review-forum-ruling-in-yaz-litigation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/bayer-fails-to-get-pennsylvania-high-court-to-review-forum-ruling-in-yaz-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:54:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ruling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/bayer-fails-to-get-pennsylvania-high-court-to-review-forum-ruling-in-yaz-litigation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PHILADELPHIA &#8211; Bayer Corp. on Feb. 1 failed in its bid to get the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to dismiss nine Yaz/Yasmin birth control pill cases on the basis of forum non conveniens (Erika Diaz v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 116 EM 2011, John Gibbs II, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 117 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PHILADELPHIA &#8211; Bayer Corp. on Feb. 1 failed in its bid to get the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to dismiss nine Yaz/Yasmin birth control pill cases on the basis of forum non conveniens (Erika Diaz v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 116 EM 2011, John Gibbs II, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 117 EM 2011, Laura Kaplan v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 118 EM 2011, Janet McClellan, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 119 EM 2011, Stacie Money v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 120 EM 2011, Petrina Moore v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 121 EM 2011, Marsha Pickens v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 122 EM 2011, Rachel Whalen v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 123 EM 2011 and Nicole Weir v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 124 EM 2011, Pa. Sup.).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/a5g9FKp5aj0" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/a5g9FKp5aj0/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/bayer-fails-to-get-pennsylvania-high-court-to-review-forum-ruling-in-yaz-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Louisiana High Court Reverses Award For Woman Injured On Village Sidewalk</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/louisiana-high-court-reverses-award-for-woman-injured-on-village-sidewalk/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/louisiana-high-court-reverses-award-for-woman-injured-on-village-sidewalk/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:57:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Award]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Louisiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reverses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sidewalk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[village]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[woman]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/louisiana-high-court-reverses-award-for-woman-injured-on-village-sidewalk/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NEW ORLEANS &#8211; The Louisiana Supreme Court on Jan. 24 overturned a judgment for a woman injured in a trip and fall accident on a municipality&#8217;s sidewalk, concluding that the deviation on the walkway did not present an unreasonable risk of harm (Arlene Chambers v. Village of Moreauville, No. 2011-C-898, La. Sup.; 2012 La. LEXIS [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NEW ORLEANS &#8211; The Louisiana Supreme Court on Jan. 24 overturned a judgment for a woman injured in a trip and fall accident on a municipality&#8217;s sidewalk, concluding that the deviation on the walkway did not present an unreasonable risk of harm (Arlene Chambers v. Village of Moreauville, No. 2011-C-898, La. Sup.; 2012 La. LEXIS 16).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/YslFxGTO1tY" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/YslFxGTO1tY/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/louisiana-high-court-reverses-award-for-woman-injured-on-village-sidewalk/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Car Passenger Was An Insured, Can Sue For Bad Faith, Alaska High Court Rules</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/car-passenger-was-an-insured-can-sue-for-bad-faith-alaska-high-court-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/car-passenger-was-an-insured-can-sue-for-bad-faith-alaska-high-court-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:53:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alaska]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Passenger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/car-passenger-was-an-insured-can-sue-for-bad-faith-alaska-high-court-rules/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ANCHORAGE, Alaska &#8211; A passenger who was injured in an auto accident has the right to sue the driver&#8217;s insurer for bad faith as an intended beneficiary, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled Jan. 20, reversing a trial court&#8217;s judgment that that the insurer did not owe the passenger a duty of good faith and fair [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ANCHORAGE, Alaska &#8211; A passenger who was injured in an auto accident has the right to sue the driver&#8217;s insurer for bad faith as an intended beneficiary, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled Jan. 20, reversing a trial court&#8217;s judgment that that the insurer did not owe the passenger a duty of good faith and fair dealing (Jacob Ennen v. Integon Indemnity Corp., et al., No. S-13832 and S-13922, Alaska Sup.; 2012 Alas. LEXIS 15).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/o7BdqFLWklE" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/o7BdqFLWklE/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/car-passenger-was-an-insured-can-sue-for-bad-faith-alaska-high-court-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Christie Names Asian Immigrant and Gay African American to High Court</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/christie-names-asian-immigrant-and-gay-african-american-to-high-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/christie-names-asian-immigrant-and-gay-african-american-to-high-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:51:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[African]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Asian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigrant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Names]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/christie-names-asian-immigrant-and-gay-african-american-to-high-court/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gov. Chris Christie has announced two nominees who, if confirmed, would become the first Asian-American and the first openly gay justice on New Jersey&#8217;s Supreme Court. The candidates are First Assistant New Jersey Attorney General Phillip Kwon and Bruce Harris, Chatham mayor and of counsel to Greenberg Traurig. View full post on Law.com &#8211; Newswire]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gov. Chris Christie has announced two nominees who, if confirmed, would become the first Asian-American and the first openly gay justice on New Jersey&#8217;s Supreme Court. The candidates are First Assistant New Jersey Attorney General Phillip Kwon and Bruce Harris, Chatham mayor and of counsel to Greenberg Traurig.</p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sign_me_in.jsp?article=http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202539688013&#038;rss=newswire" >Law.com &#8211; Newswire</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/christie-names-asian-immigrant-and-gay-african-american-to-high-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Delaware High Court Affirms Presuit Demand Was Not Excused In Shareholder Suit</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/delaware-high-court-affirms-presuit-demand-was-not-excused-in-shareholder-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/delaware-high-court-affirms-presuit-demand-was-not-excused-in-shareholder-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:24:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Affirms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[demand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[excused]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Presuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/delaware-high-court-affirms-presuit-demand-was-not-excused-in-shareholder-suit/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WILMINGTON, Del. &#8211; The Delaware Supreme Court on Jan. 19 affirmed a lower court decision in a shareholder derivative suit that presuit demand on a corporation&#8217;s board of directors was not excused (Marylynn Hartsel, et al. v. The Vanguard Group, Inc, et al., No. 306, 2011, Del. Sup.). View full post on LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WILMINGTON, Del. &#8211; The Delaware Supreme Court on Jan. 19 affirmed a lower court decision in a shareholder derivative suit that presuit demand on a corporation&#8217;s board of directors was not excused (Marylynn Hartsel, et al. v. The Vanguard Group, Inc, et al., No. 306, 2011, Del. Sup.).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/QRi2XBKF4H0" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/QRi2XBKF4H0/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/delaware-high-court-affirms-presuit-demand-was-not-excused-in-shareholder-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Foes of &#8216;Pay for Delay&#8217; Drug Settlements Turn to State&#8217;s High Court</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/foes-of-pay-for-delay-drug-settlements-turn-to-states-high-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/foes-of-pay-for-delay-drug-settlements-turn-to-states-high-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:41:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA['Pay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[delay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drug]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Turn]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/foes-of-pay-for-delay-drug-settlements-turn-to-states-high-court/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A class of consumers challenging &#8220;pay for delay&#8221; drug settlements is asking California&#8217;s Supreme Court to find that pharmaceutical patent holders violate antitrust laws when they pay competitors to put off the potential release of generic medicines &#8212; a practice estimated to cost consumers $3.5 billion a year in inflated prices. View full post on [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A class of consumers challenging &#8220;pay for delay&#8221; drug settlements is asking California&#8217;s Supreme Court to find that pharmaceutical patent holders violate antitrust laws when they pay competitors to put off the potential release of generic medicines &#8212; a practice estimated to cost consumers $3.5 billion a year in inflated prices.</p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sign_me_in.jsp?article=http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202539458709&#038;rss=newswire" >Law.com &#8211; Newswire</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/foes-of-pay-for-delay-drug-settlements-turn-to-states-high-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unsuccessful Bidder Has Standing To Bring Antitrust Claim, Conn. High Court Rules</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/unsuccessful-bidder-has-standing-to-bring-antitrust-claim-conn-high-court-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/unsuccessful-bidder-has-standing-to-bring-antitrust-claim-conn-high-court-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:16:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA['Standing']]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bidder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conn.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unsuccessful]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/unsuccessful-bidder-has-standing-to-bring-antitrust-claim-conn-high-court-rules/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[HARTFORD, Conn. &#8211; A nonunion contractor has standing to challenge prebid specifications requiring the successful bidder to use union labor under the Connecticut Antitrust Act, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Jan. 17 (Electrical Contractors, Inc., et al. v. Department of Education, et al., No. SC 18525, Conn.; 2012 Conn. LEXIS 6). View full post on [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HARTFORD, Conn. &#8211; A nonunion contractor has standing to challenge prebid specifications requiring the successful bidder to use union labor under the Connecticut Antitrust Act, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Jan. 17 (Electrical Contractors, Inc., et al. v. Department of Education, et al., No. SC 18525, Conn.; 2012 Conn. LEXIS 6).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/Fas9yAMqwI0" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/Fas9yAMqwI0/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/unsuccessful-bidder-has-standing-to-bring-antitrust-claim-conn-high-court-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Attorney Fee Award Is Not A Covered Claim, Florida High Court Affirms</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/attorney-fee-award-is-not-a-covered-claim-florida-high-court-affirms/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/attorney-fee-award-is-not-a-covered-claim-florida-high-court-affirms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:53:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Affirms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Award]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Covered]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/attorney-fee-award-is-not-a-covered-claim-florida-high-court-affirms/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TALLAHASSEE, Fla. &#8211; An insured&#8217;s $ 29,300 attorney fee award under Florida Statutes Section 627.428(1) is not within the coverage of her insurance policy, and, therefore, it is not a covered claim under Florida Statutes Section 631.54(3), the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Jan. 19 (Diane Petty, et al. v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, No. 10-2097, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TALLAHASSEE, Fla. &#8211; An insured&#8217;s $ 29,300 attorney fee award under Florida Statutes Section 627.428(1) is not within the coverage of her insurance policy, and, therefore, it is not a covered claim under Florida Statutes Section 631.54(3), the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Jan. 19 (Diane Petty, et al. v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, No. 10-2097, Fla. Sup.; 2012 Fla. LEXIS 72).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/h9WZj0Pk_DE" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/h9WZj0Pk_DE/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/attorney-fee-award-is-not-a-covered-claim-florida-high-court-affirms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>High Court Will Not Consider State-Action Immunity In Tying Lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/high-court-will-not-consider-state-action-immunity-in-tying-lawsuit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/high-court-will-not-consider-state-action-immunity-in-tying-lawsuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:13:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consider]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[StateAction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tying]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/high-court-will-not-consider-state-action-immunity-in-tying-lawsuit/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. &#8211; The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 17 declined to review a 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that a city in Oklahoma is not entitled to state-action immunity in an electricity provider&#8217;s lawsuit alleging that the city unlawfully tied its provision of electricity to sewage services in an area that it [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON, D.C. &#8211; The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 17 declined to review a 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that a city in Oklahoma is not entitled to state-action immunity in an electricity provider&#8217;s lawsuit alleging that the city unlawfully tied its provision of electricity to sewage services in an area that it annexed (City of Newkirk, Oklahoma, et al. v. Kay Electric Cooperative, et al., No. 11-618, U.S. Sup.).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/PF7_KmFjzCY" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/PF7_KmFjzCY/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/high-court-will-not-consider-state-action-immunity-in-tying-lawsuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

