<?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>Lawyers USA Online &#187; Business and Civil Practice</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/category/news/Business-and-Civil-Practice/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 20:49:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court declines to hear music downloading case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/23/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-music-downloading-case/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/23/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-music-downloading-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 20:49:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sylvia Hsieh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[due process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal downloading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[music downloading]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A $675,000 jury verdict against a student who illegally downloaded 30 songs from the Internet was left standing by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to take the matter up. </p> <p>Joel Tenenbaum, a 28-year-old Boston University physics student, used file-sharing software to download and distribute music on sites including <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/23/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-music-downloading-case/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/23/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-music-downloading-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ADA doesn’t protect medical marijuana users&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/23/ada-doesnt-protect-medical-marijuana-users/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/23/ada-doesnt-protect-medical-marijuana-users/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 16:40:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ADA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disability discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical marijuana]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84530</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Federal disability discrimination law does not protect medical marijuana users who claimed their civil rights were violated by local municipalities that interfered with the lawful distribution of the drug, the 9th Circuit has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>Medical marijuana use is permitted under California law. The plaintiffs are severely disabled <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/23/ada-doesnt-protect-medical-marijuana-users/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/23/ada-doesnt-protect-medical-marijuana-users/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Police officer’s lawsuit divides town, settles for $1.2 million&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/police-officers-lawsuit-divides-town-settles-for-1-2-million/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/police-officers-lawsuit-divides-town-settles-for-1-2-million/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 18:34:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan McDonald</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verdicts and Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil rights violation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emotional distress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retaliation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84498</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At first, attorney Michael Sacco thought he was handling a routine disability claim.

A sole practitioner in Westfield, Mass. who typically represents retirement boards, Sacco quickly found himself knee-deep in a civil rights lawsuit that offered a glimpse into the inner political machinations of a sleepy town and its police department, revealing a sordid mess.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/police-officers-lawsuit-divides-town-settles-for-1-2-million/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Vermont takes symbolic stand with first fracking ban&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/vermont-takes-symbolic-stand-with-first-fracking-ban/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/vermont-takes-symbolic-stand-with-first-fracking-ban/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 19:16:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Stodder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hydraulic fracturing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural gas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vermont]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84459</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The state of Vermont has become the first in the nation to prohibit fracking, establishing a model that anti-fracking activists hope will be followed by other states.</p> <p>Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, is a practice that involves injecting water, sand and chemicals deep underground to extract natural gas from <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/vermont-takes-symbolic-stand-with-first-fracking-ban/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/vermont-takes-symbolic-stand-with-first-fracking-ban/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Party can’t recover cost of translating documents&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/party-cant-recover-cost-of-translating-documents/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/party-cant-recover-cost-of-translating-documents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 17:44:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[translator]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="size-full wp-image-76651 alignleft" title="examine-documents" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files//2011/01/examine-documents.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />A defendant that prevailed in a personal injury case filed in federal court could not recover its costs for translat­ing documents from Japanese to English, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 6-3 decision.</p> <p>The ruling reverses a decision from <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/party-cant-recover-cost-of-translating-documents/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/party-cant-recover-cost-of-translating-documents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Party may depose opposing counsel&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/party-may-depose-opposing-counsel/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/party-may-depose-opposing-counsel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 16:52:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Your Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney-client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work product]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84446</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>State law did not absolutely prohibit a party in a business dispute from deposing the opposing party’s former trial lawyer, the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled.</p> <p>The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a real estate development project. When a multimillion loan for the project went into default, the plaintiff <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/party-may-depose-opposing-counsel/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/party-may-depose-opposing-counsel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Drug maker can’t be sued for off-label marketing&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/drug-maker-cant-be-sued-for-off-label-marketing/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/drug-maker-cant-be-sued-for-off-label-marketing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 14:58:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[off-label marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product liability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84412</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A patient and a union health and welfare fund lacked standing to sue Schering Plough for allegedly engaging in illegal marketing campaigns to persuade physicians to prescribe certain drugs for off-label uses, the 3rd Circuit has ruled in affirming a dismissal.</p> <p>The consolidated appeal addressed two class actions against Schering <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/drug-maker-cant-be-sued-for-off-label-marketing/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/drug-maker-cant-be-sued-for-off-label-marketing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Former employee wins $1.5 million in securities fraud suit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/former-employee-wins-1-5-million-in-securities-fraud-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/former-employee-wins-1-5-million-in-securities-fraud-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 14:44:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Ogden</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verdicts and Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A former employee of Stiefel Laboratories won a $1.5 million verdict on allegations that the Coral Gables-based company defrauded its employee shareholders during its $2.9 billion sale to GlaxoSmithKline in 2009.</p> <p>Read the full article from the <em>South Florida Business Journal</em>: <strong><a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2012/05/17/former-stiefel-employee-wins-15m.html">Former Stiefel employee wins $1.5M verdict in securities fraud <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/former-employee-wins-1-5-million-in-securities-fraud-suit/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></a></strong></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/former-employee-wins-1-5-million-in-securities-fraud-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Skechers to pay $40 million to settle case over claims&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/skechers-to-pay-40-million-to-settle-case-over-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/skechers-to-pay-40-million-to-settle-case-over-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 14:42:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Ogden</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verdicts and Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[false advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weight loss]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84407</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Skechers has agreed to pay $40 million to settle charges that the company made unsupported claims about the benefits of its toning shoes, falsely asserting that they help people lose weight, tone their lower bodies and even combat heart disease.</p> <p>Read the full article from the <em>Columbia Daily Tribune</em>: <strong><a href="http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/may/17/skechers-to-settle-case-over-claims/">Skechers <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/skechers-to-pay-40-million-to-settle-case-over-claims/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></a></strong></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/skechers-to-pay-40-million-to-settle-case-over-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>$4.9M junk fax deal isn’t covered by insurance&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/17/4-9m-junk-fax-deal-isnt-covered-by-insurance/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/17/4-9m-junk-fax-deal-isnt-covered-by-insurance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 15:43:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[junk fax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telephone Consumer Protection Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84371</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Insurance does not cover a $4.9 million settlement of a consumer lawsuit alleging that a business violated federal law by sending unsolicited fax advertisements, the Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiff filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/17/4-9m-junk-fax-deal-isnt-covered-by-insurance/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/17/4-9m-junk-fax-deal-isnt-covered-by-insurance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
