<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Liberalized Standards for Publication of Appellate Opinions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/06/04/liberalized-standards-for-publication-of-appellate-opinions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/06/04/liberalized-standards-for-publication-of-appellate-opinions/</link>
	<description>Appellate Attorney Greg May on Practice and Developments in the Appellate Courts of California</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:25:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Study of Sanctions in Appellate Proceedings &#124; The California Blog of Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/06/04/liberalized-standards-for-publication-of-appellate-opinions/comment-page-1/#comment-497</link>
		<dc:creator>Study of Sanctions in Appellate Proceedings &#124; The California Blog of Appeal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:27:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calblogofappeal.com/archives/126#comment-497</guid>
		<description>[...] I was struck by how many of the cited cases were unreported.  The Court of Appeal should want to publicize the conduct that leads to sanctions, because this would inform and deter.  It could be that sanctions are so rare (awarded in approximately 1 out of every 500 cases during the studied period) that the Court of Appeal finds additional deterrence unnecessary.  Whatever the reasons for unpublished sanctions opinions, perhaps more of them will be published under the new rules for publication. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I was struck by how many of the cited cases were unreported.  The Court of Appeal should want to publicize the conduct that leads to sanctions, because this would inform and deter.  It could be that sanctions are so rare (awarded in approximately 1 out of every 500 cases during the studied period) that the Court of Appeal finds additional deterrence unnecessary.  Whatever the reasons for unpublished sanctions opinions, perhaps more of them will be published under the new rules for publication. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

