<?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; Judge</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lawadvice.ws/tag/judge/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>Federal judge allows polygamous family&#8217;s lawsuit challenging Utah&#8217;s bigamy law &#8230; &#8211; Washington Post</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/federal-judge-allows-polygamous-familys-lawsuit-challenging-utahs-bigamy-law-washington-post/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/federal-judge-allows-polygamous-familys-lawsuit-challenging-utahs-bigamy-law-washington-post/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:50:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bigamy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Challenging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family's]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polygamous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah's]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/federal-judge-allows-polygamous-familys-lawsuit-challenging-utahs-bigamy-law-washington-post/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Federal judge allows polygamous family&#39;s lawsuit challenging Utah&#39;s bigamy law &#8230;Washington PostSALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge has ruled there&#39;s sufficient evidence to allow a polygamous family made famous by a reality TV show to pursue a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Utah&#39;s bigamy law. US District Judge Clark Waddoups on Friday &#8230;and more&#160;&#187; [...]]]></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=AFQjCNGYbzWZkQI-DjGXuVYlCPl8Rb0Nxw&amp;url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/federal-judge-allows-polygamous-familys-lawsuit-challenging-utahs-bigamy-law-to-go-forward/2012/02/04/gIQAvhu5pQ_story.html" ><b>Federal judge allows polygamous family&#39;s lawsuit challenging Utah&#39;s bigamy <b>law</b> <b>&#8230;</b></b></a><br /><font size="-1"><b><font color="#6f6f6f">Washington Post</font></b></font><br /><font size="-1">SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge has ruled there&#39;s sufficient evidence to allow a polygamous family made famous by a reality TV show to pursue a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Utah&#39;s bigamy <b>law</b>. US District Judge Clark Waddoups on Friday <b>&#8230;</b></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=dLm4djOvxfpSmBM&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=AFQjCNGYbzWZkQI-DjGXuVYlCPl8Rb0Nxw&#038;url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/federal-judge-allows-polygamous-familys-lawsuit-challenging-utahs-bigamy-law-to-go-forward/2012/02/04/gIQAvhu5pQ_story.html" >law &#8211; Google News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/federal-judge-allows-polygamous-familys-lawsuit-challenging-utahs-bigamy-law-washington-post/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MF Global Bankruptcy Judge: Assets Not Distributed To Commodities Customers</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/mf-global-bankruptcy-judge-assets-not-distributed-to-commodities-customers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/mf-global-bankruptcy-judge-assets-not-distributed-to-commodities-customers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:45:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Assets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commodities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Customers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Distributed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GLOBAL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/mf-global-bankruptcy-judge-assets-not-distributed-to-commodities-customers/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NEW YORK &#8211; The federal bankruptcy judge presiding over the Chapter 11 case of MF Global Holdings Ltd. on Feb. 1 denied a request by MF Global&#8217;s commodities customers who sought an order directing the trustee to distribute the assets in the bankruptcy estate (In Re: MF Global Holdings Ltd., No. 11-15059, Chapter 11, S.D. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NEW YORK &#8211; The federal bankruptcy judge presiding over the Chapter 11 case of MF Global Holdings Ltd. on Feb. 1 denied a request by MF Global&#8217;s commodities customers who sought an order directing the trustee to distribute the assets in the bankruptcy estate (In Re: MF Global Holdings Ltd., No. 11-15059, Chapter 11, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/Rv_5OMpbWiI" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/Rv_5OMpbWiI/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/mf-global-bankruptcy-judge-assets-not-distributed-to-commodities-customers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge Stays Petition To Confirm Until German Court Rules On Award</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-stays-petition-to-confirm-until-german-court-rules-on-award/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-stays-petition-to-confirm-until-german-court-rules-on-award/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:11:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Award]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confirm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[German]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Petition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stays]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Until]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-stays-petition-to-confirm-until-german-court-rules-on-award/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CINCINNATI &#8211; An Ohio federal judge on Jan. 31 filed a decision to stay a petition to confirm an arbitration award issued by a tribunal in a dispute over the licensing of patents related to electric discharge machining wire used in precision cutting, until a challenge to the award can be heard by a German [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CINCINNATI &#8211; An Ohio federal judge on Jan. 31 filed a decision to stay a petition to confirm an arbitration award issued by a tribunal in a dispute over the licensing of patents related to electric discharge machining wire used in precision cutting, until a challenge to the award can be heard by a German court (Berkenhoff GmbH v. Global Trade Network Inc., et al., No. 1:11-CV-00475, S.D. Ohio; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11579).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/v-ZljUL5A7w" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/v-ZljUL5A7w/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-stays-petition-to-confirm-until-german-court-rules-on-award/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Magistrate Judge: Prior Injury Made Workers&#8217; Comp Benefits Denial Reasonable</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/magistrate-judge-prior-injury-made-workers-comp-benefits-denial-reasonable/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/magistrate-judge-prior-injury-made-workers-comp-benefits-denial-reasonable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:56:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Comp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[denial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Made]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[magistrate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/magistrate-judge-prior-injury-made-workers-comp-benefits-denial-reasonable/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TYLER, Texas &#8211; Because an insurer&#8217;s denial of workers&#8217; compensation benefits was in line with a decision by the Texas Department of Insurance &#8211; Division of Workers&#8217; Compensation (DWC), a Texas federal magistrate judge on Jan. 31 found no support for an employee&#8217;s bad faith claims (Mark Parmer v. Travelers Indemnity Co., No. 6:11-cv-00311, E.D. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TYLER, Texas &#8211; Because an insurer&#8217;s denial of workers&#8217; compensation benefits was in line with a decision by the Texas Department of Insurance &#8211; Division of Workers&#8217; Compensation (DWC), a Texas federal magistrate judge on Jan. 31 found no support for an employee&#8217;s bad faith claims (Mark Parmer v. Travelers Indemnity Co., No. 6:11-cv-00311, E.D. Texas; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11474).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/Yq_BoR3pV4E" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/Yq_BoR3pV4E/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/magistrate-judge-prior-injury-made-workers-comp-benefits-denial-reasonable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Texas Federal Judge Grants Summary Judgment On Copyright Claims</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/texas-federal-judge-grants-summary-judgment-on-copyright-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/texas-federal-judge-grants-summary-judgment-on-copyright-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:22:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Summary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/texas-federal-judge-grants-summary-judgment-on-copyright-claims/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[HOUSTON &#8211; Allegations of copyright infringement were rejected Jan. 31 by a Texas federal judge, who found that the manuals and drawings at issue could not be copyrighted when they were previously within the public domain (Axxiom Manufacturing Inc. v. McCoy Investments Inc., No. 09-3735, S.D. Texas; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11504). View full post [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HOUSTON &#8211; Allegations of copyright infringement were rejected Jan. 31 by a Texas federal judge, who found that the manuals and drawings at issue could not be copyrighted when they were previously within the public domain (Axxiom Manufacturing Inc. v. McCoy Investments Inc., No. 09-3735, S.D. Texas; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11504).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/uZB6y6o6d_k" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/uZB6y6o6d_k/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/texas-federal-judge-grants-summary-judgment-on-copyright-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge: Board&#8217;s Notice Error Not Prejudicial To Man&#8217;s Asbestos Claim</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-boards-notice-error-not-prejudicial-to-mans-asbestos-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-boards-notice-error-not-prejudicial-to-mans-asbestos-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:14:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Asbestos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Error]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Man's]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[notice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prejudicial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-boards-notice-error-not-prejudicial-to-mans-asbestos-claim/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. &#8211; The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs improperly failed to notify a claimant of his duty to provide complete medical records, but the error was not prejudicial given that it accepted his version of the facts, a U.S. appeals judge held Jan. 30 (Scott L. Greene v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON, D.C. &#8211; The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs improperly failed to notify a claimant of his duty to provide complete medical records, but the error was not prejudicial given that it accepted his version of the facts, a U.S. appeals judge held Jan. 30 (Scott L. Greene v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, No. 10-2077, Vet. Clms. App.; 2012 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 131).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/wOejn_99FaA" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/wOejn_99FaA/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-boards-notice-error-not-prejudicial-to-mans-asbestos-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Firefighters&#8217; Status Dooms Former Employee&#8217;s Claim, Michigan Federal Judge Finds</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/firefighters-status-dooms-former-employees-claim-michigan-federal-judge-finds/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/firefighters-status-dooms-former-employees-claim-michigan-federal-judge-finds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:25:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dooms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employees.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[finds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[firefighters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Former]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Status]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/firefighters-status-dooms-former-employees-claim-michigan-federal-judge-finds/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[DETROIT &#8211; A former 911 dispatcher&#8217;s claim that the city where he worked violated the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) fails because the city&#8217;s paid volunteer firefighters are not &#8220;employees&#8221; under the act and, therefore, the city does not meet the 50-employee requirement for FMLA eligibility, a Michigan federal judge held Jan. 31 (Paul Mendel [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DETROIT &#8211; A former 911 dispatcher&#8217;s claim that the city where he worked violated the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) fails because the city&#8217;s paid volunteer firefighters are not &#8220;employees&#8221; under the act and, therefore, the city does not meet the 50-employee requirement for FMLA eligibility, a Michigan federal judge held Jan. 31 (Paul Mendel v. City of Gibraltar, No. 11-10496, E.D. Mich.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11558).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/Vsfko1KkyaQ" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/Vsfko1KkyaQ/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/firefighters-status-dooms-former-employees-claim-michigan-federal-judge-finds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oil Spill MDL Judge Allows Evidence On Non-Rig Cement Testing</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/oil-spill-mdl-judge-allows-evidence-on-non-rig-cement-testing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/oil-spill-mdl-judge-allows-evidence-on-non-rig-cement-testing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:51:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EVIDENCE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NonRig]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/oil-spill-mdl-judge-allows-evidence-on-non-rig-cement-testing/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NEW ORLEANS &#8211; The federal judge in Louisiana overseeing the multidistrict litigation for claims arising from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig and ensuing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on Feb. 1 denied Halliburton Energy Services Inc.&#8217;s motion to exclude evidence related to the testing of cement samples that were not [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NEW ORLEANS &#8211; The federal judge in Louisiana overseeing the multidistrict litigation for claims arising from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig and ensuing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on Feb. 1 denied Halliburton Energy Services Inc.&#8217;s motion to exclude evidence related to the testing of cement samples that were not used on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig (In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig &#8220;Deepwater Horizon&#8221; in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, MDL 2179, Case No. 10-md-2179, E.D. La.).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/BifwEWDJC80" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/BifwEWDJC80/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/oil-spill-mdl-judge-allows-evidence-on-non-rig-cement-testing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge Declines To Stay Coverage Suit Against 2 Insolvent Insurers</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-declines-to-stay-coverage-suit-against-2-insolvent-insurers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-declines-to-stay-coverage-suit-against-2-insolvent-insurers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:36:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[against]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[declines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insolvent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-declines-to-stay-coverage-suit-against-2-insolvent-insurers/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SACRAMENTO, Calif. &#8211; A federal judge in California on Jan. 31 refused to stay a coverage action against insolvent insurance companies pursuant to liquidation orders filed in a New York state court because the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act (UILA) does not require that in personam proceedings filed in a California state court against the insolvent [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SACRAMENTO, Calif. &#8211; A federal judge in California on Jan. 31 refused to stay a coverage action against insolvent insurance companies pursuant to liquidation orders filed in a New York state court because the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act (UILA) does not require that in personam proceedings filed in a California state court against the insolvent insurers be stayed (Dale M. Wallis, D.V.M., et al. v. Centennial Insurance Co. Inc. and Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. Inc., No. 08-02558, E.D. Calif.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11655).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/CRwSMApQzKA" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/CRwSMApQzKA/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-declines-to-stay-coverage-suit-against-2-insolvent-insurers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MDL Judge: Under Maritime Law, Manufacturers Not Liable For Replacement Parts</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/mdl-judge-under-maritime-law-manufacturers-not-liable-for-replacement-parts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/mdl-judge-under-maritime-law-manufacturers-not-liable-for-replacement-parts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:20:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Manufacturers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maritime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[replacement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[under]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/mdl-judge-under-maritime-law-manufacturers-not-liable-for-replacement-parts/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PHILADELPHIA &#8211; Under maritime law, manufacturers cannot be held liable for asbestos-containing components they neither manufactured nor installed, the judge overseeing the federal asbestos multidistrict litigation held Feb. 1 (Lois Jean Conner v. Alfa Laval Inc., et al., James H. Prange, et al. v. Alfa Laval Inc., et al., James W. Stone v. Alfa Laval [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PHILADELPHIA &#8211; Under maritime law, manufacturers cannot be held liable for asbestos-containing components they neither manufactured nor installed, the judge overseeing the federal asbestos multidistrict litigation held Feb. 1 (Lois Jean Conner v. Alfa Laval Inc., et al., James H. Prange, et al. v. Alfa Laval Inc., et al., James W. Stone v. Alfa Laval Inc., et al., MDL 875, Nos. 09-67099, 09-91848, 09-93726, E.D. Pa.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11812).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/4Bak1UYMyTc" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/4Bak1UYMyTc/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/mdl-judge-under-maritime-law-manufacturers-not-liable-for-replacement-parts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

