<?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: What Constitutes Extrinsic Evidence that Changes the Standard of Review?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/07/24/what-constitutes-extrinsic-evidence-that-changes-the-standard-of-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/07/24/what-constitutes-extrinsic-evidence-that-changes-the-standard-of-review/</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: Why Some Lawyers and Their Clients are Reluctant to Engage Appellate Counsel, Part 2: &#8220;It&#8217;s Just Litigation.&#8221; &#124; The California Blog of Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/07/24/what-constitutes-extrinsic-evidence-that-changes-the-standard-of-review/comment-page-1/#comment-5242</link>
		<dc:creator>Why Some Lawyers and Their Clients are Reluctant to Engage Appellate Counsel, Part 2: &#8220;It&#8217;s Just Litigation.&#8221; &#124; The California Blog of Appeal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:31:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calblogofappeal.com/?p=895#comment-5242</guid>
		<description>[...] test&#8221;.  Indeed, parties regularly argue over the applicable standard, either because the nature of the issue is misleading or because the applicable standard for a given judgment has not been established (such as here, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] test&#8221;.  Indeed, parties regularly argue over the applicable standard, either because the nature of the issue is misleading or because the applicable standard for a given judgment has not been established (such as here, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

