<?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/practice-areas/business-and-civil-practice/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:18 +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>Mortgage servicing isn’t ‘consumer transaction’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/24/mortgage-servicing-isnt-consumer-transaction/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/24/mortgage-servicing-isnt-consumer-transaction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:32:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgage servicing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgages]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92944</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The servicing of a borrower’s residential mortgage loan is not a “consumer transaction” under state consumer protection law, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled in answering a certified question from a U.S. District Court.</p> <p>The defendant is in the business of servicing residential mortgages. As a mortgage servicer, the defendant <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/24/mortgage-servicing-isnt-consumer-transaction/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/24/mortgage-servicing-isnt-consumer-transaction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Toxic contamination suit not removable under CAFA&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/24/toxic-contamination-suit-not-removable-under-cafa/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/24/toxic-contamination-suit-not-removable-under-cafa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:29:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action fairness act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmental litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuisance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[toxic emissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92942</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An environmental contamination suit brought by more than 500 homeowners was not a removable “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiffs are more than 500 citizens of the Virgin Islands who claimed that toxic dust <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/24/toxic-contamination-suit-not-removable-under-cafa/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/24/toxic-contamination-suit-not-removable-under-cafa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trustee’s mistake voided California foreclosure sale&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/23/trustees-mistake-voided-california-foreclosure-sale/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/23/trustees-mistake-voided-california-foreclosure-sale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 18:10:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-judicial foreclosure]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92928</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A trustee could void a nonjudicial foreclosure sale based on its mistake in communicating the lender’s opening bid to the auctioneer, the California Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiff submitted a bid of $22,000 in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of a home. The lender, which was owed <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/23/trustees-mistake-voided-california-foreclosure-sale/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/23/trustees-mistake-voided-california-foreclosure-sale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Check-cashing firm’s arbitration clause enforceable&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/check-cashing-firms-arbitration-clause-enforceable/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/check-cashing-firms-arbitration-clause-enforceable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 20:39:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[payday loan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[predatory lending]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92922</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A check-cashing business could enforce an updated version of an arbitration clause included in its delayed-deposit customer agreements, the Mississippi Court of Appeals has ruled.</p> <p>The defendant is in the business of delayed-deposit check cashing. Essentially, the business involves cashing the personal checks of customers for up to $500 plus <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/check-cashing-firms-arbitration-clause-enforceable/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/check-cashing-firms-arbitration-clause-enforceable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FTC briefs Senate committee on credit reporting accuracy&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/ftc-briefs-senate-committee-on-credit-reporting-accuracy/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/ftc-briefs-senate-committee-on-credit-reporting-accuracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 18:13:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Credit Reporting Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Trade Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92916</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Errors in credit reports can cause businesses to deny credit to potentially valuable customers, a director of the Federal Trade Commission warned a U.S. Senate subcommittee earlier this month.</p> <p>“The Commission recognizes the importance of accurate and complete credit reports, both to businesses that use them to make decisions and <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/ftc-briefs-senate-committee-on-credit-reporting-accuracy/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/ftc-briefs-senate-committee-on-credit-reporting-accuracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court takes up peeved airline flyer’s preemption case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/court-takes-up-peeved-airline-flyers-preemption-case/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/court-takes-up-peeved-airline-flyers-preemption-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 18:02:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Airline Deregulation Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92914</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON – A long running battle between a Minnesota frequent flyer and an airline carrier has landed before the U.S. Supreme Court, giving the justices yet another chance to weigh in on whether a federal law preempts a state law-based lawsuit.</p> <p>The justices agreed on May 20 to hear the <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/court-takes-up-peeved-airline-flyers-preemption-case/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/court-takes-up-peeved-airline-flyers-preemption-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benchmarks: Ex-NCAA quarterback can pursue publicity claim against EA Sports&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/benchmarks-ex-ncaa-quarterback-can-pursue-likeness-claim-against-ea-sports/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/benchmarks-ex-ncaa-quarterback-can-pursue-likeness-claim-against-ea-sports/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 13:23:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right of publicity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video games]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The First Amendment does not bar the lawsuit of a former Rutgers quarterback who claims that EA Sports used his likeness without permission in the immensely popular “NCAA Football” series of video games.</p> <p>That’s the conclusion reached Tuesday by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.</p> <p>In reviving the lawsuit <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/benchmarks-ex-ncaa-quarterback-can-pursue-likeness-claim-against-ea-sports/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/benchmarks-ex-ncaa-quarterback-can-pursue-likeness-claim-against-ea-sports/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court to clarify burden of proof in Medtronic ‘non-infringement’ action&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/21/court-to-clarify-burden-of-proof-in-medtronic-non-infringement-action/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/21/court-to-clarify-burden-of-proof-in-medtronic-non-infringement-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 12:21:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[licensee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[noninfringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92872</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a patentee bears the burden of proving infringement when its licensee brings a declaratory judgment action to establish non-infringement.</p> <p>The court will review a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In <a title="Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific, Corp." <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/21/court-to-clarify-burden-of-proof-in-medtronic-non-infringement-action/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/21/court-to-clarify-burden-of-proof-in-medtronic-non-infringement-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beneficiary must arbitrate claims against trustee&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/20/beneficiary-must-arbitrate-claims-against-trustee/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/20/beneficiary-must-arbitrate-claims-against-trustee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 20:47:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wills and trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92849</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A trust beneficiary was bound by a trust arbitration provision when suing a trustee for misappropriation of assets, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiff’s father established a trust, naming the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s brother as sole beneficiaries. The father named himself as trustee. When <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/20/beneficiary-must-arbitrate-claims-against-trustee/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/20/beneficiary-must-arbitrate-claims-against-trustee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arbitration subject to state statute of limitations&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/20/arbitration-subject-to-state-statute-of-limitations/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/20/arbitration-subject-to-state-statute-of-limitations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 20:45:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statute of limitations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92847</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The state statute of limitations applied to bar arbitration claims brought by the clients of a financial services company, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiffs are former clients of Raymond James Financial Services. According to the plaintiffs, a Raymond James branch manager in Florida invested <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/20/arbitration-subject-to-state-statute-of-limitations/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/20/arbitration-subject-to-state-statute-of-limitations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
