<?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: Supreme Court Gets Rid of Conflicts by Dismissing Case</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/11/06/supreme-court-gets-rid-of-conflicts-by-dismissing-case/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/11/06/supreme-court-gets-rid-of-conflicts-by-dismissing-case/</link>
	<description>Appellate Attorney Greg May on Practice and Developments in the Appellate Courts of California</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 00:33:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Would this have Worked for the California Supremes? &#124; The California Blog of Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/11/06/supreme-court-gets-rid-of-conflicts-by-dismissing-case/comment-page-1/#comment-1166</link>
		<dc:creator>Would this have Worked for the California Supremes? &#124; The California Blog of Appeal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:56:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/11/06/supreme-court-gets-rid-of-conflicts-by-dismissing-case/#comment-1166</guid>
		<description>[...] may make this seem like a moot consideration for our own Supreme Court, but keep in mind that the California Supreme Court dismissed a case last year because four of the seven justices had devel... (through corporate mergers occurring after the grant of review). Would selling off the stock have [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] may make this seem like a moot consideration for our own Supreme Court, but keep in mind that the California Supreme Court dismissed a case last year because four of the seven justices had devel&#8230; (through corporate mergers occurring after the grant of review). Would selling off the stock have [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Supremes Deny Republication of Lockheed Litigation Cases &#124; The California Blog of Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/11/06/supreme-court-gets-rid-of-conflicts-by-dismissing-case/comment-page-1/#comment-949</link>
		<dc:creator>Supremes Deny Republication of Lockheed Litigation Cases &#124; The California Blog of Appeal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/11/06/supreme-court-gets-rid-of-conflicts-by-dismissing-case/#comment-949</guid>
		<description>[...] might remember my post from early November about the dismissal of Supreme Court review of the Lockheed Litigation [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] might remember my post from early November about the dismissal of Supreme Court review of the Lockheed Litigation [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Opening Brief &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Stare Decisis in the California Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/11/06/supreme-court-gets-rid-of-conflicts-by-dismissing-case/comment-page-1/#comment-772</link>
		<dc:creator>The Opening Brief &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Stare Decisis in the California Supreme Court</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:31:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/11/06/supreme-court-gets-rid-of-conflicts-by-dismissing-case/#comment-772</guid>
		<description>[...] Court dismissed review after four justices recused themselves from hearing the matter.  (The California Blog of Appeal has more detail on the dismissal)  Attorneys for the plaintiffs expressed surprise that the court [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Court dismissed review after four justices recused themselves from hearing the matter.  (The California Blog of Appeal has more detail on the dismissal)  Attorneys for the plaintiffs expressed surprise that the court [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
