<?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</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 15:58:28 +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>Ford isn’t liable for ‘take-home’ asbestos&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/ford-isnt-liable-for-take-home-asbestos/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/ford-isnt-liable-for-take-home-asbestos/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 15:57:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mesothelioma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[take-home asbestos]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84642</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Ford Motor Co. isn’t liable for injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos carried home on the clothes of independent contractors who worked at one of the auto maker’s plants, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in reversing a $40,000 jury verdict.</p> <p>The plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma in <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/ford-isnt-liable-for-take-home-asbestos/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/ford-isnt-liable-for-take-home-asbestos/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Title VII suit isn’t governed by ‘sole reason’ standard&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/title-vii-suit-isnt-governed-by-sole-reason-standard/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/title-vii-suit-isnt-governed-by-sole-reason-standard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 15:54:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Title VII]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workplace discrimination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84640</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A Title VII plaintiff was not required to show that unlawful discrimination was the sole reason why he was passed over for a job, the D.C. Circuit has ruled.</p> <p>The plaintiff is a Cuban-American male who received the highest interview scores among the 16 finalists for a director of workplace <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/title-vii-suit-isnt-governed-by-sole-reason-standard/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/title-vii-suit-isnt-governed-by-sole-reason-standard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Indirect purchasers can’t get homebuyer tax credit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/indirect-purchasers-cant-get-homebuyer-tax-credit/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/indirect-purchasers-cant-get-homebuyer-tax-credit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 15:50:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[S corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84638</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Taxpayers who purchased their home through their subchapter S corporation could not claim a first-time homebuyer credit when they filed their federal income taxes, the U.S. Tax Court has ruled in upholding a deficiency determination.</p> <p>The taxpayers are a married couple and the only shareholders of a subchapter S corporation. <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/indirect-purchasers-cant-get-homebuyer-tax-credit/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/indirect-purchasers-cant-get-homebuyer-tax-credit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Doctor can’t share in fault without proof of malpractice&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/doctor-cant-share-in-fault-without-proof-of-malpractice/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/doctor-cant-share-in-fault-without-proof-of-malpractice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 15:47:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comparative fault]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84636</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A personal injury defendant was required prove all the elements of medical malpractice before a non-party doctor could be found comparatively at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiff was injured when the elevator in her apartment building malfunctioned and <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/doctor-cant-share-in-fault-without-proof-of-malpractice/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/doctor-cant-share-in-fault-without-proof-of-malpractice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NLRB to rule if university faculty fall under NLRA&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/nlrb-to-rule-if-university-faculty-fall-under-nlra/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/nlrb-to-rule-if-university-faculty-fall-under-nlra/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 15:07:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exempt managers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[faculty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NLRB]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84634</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON – The National Labor Relations Board is accepting briefs in a case considering whether university faculty members seeking to unionize are considered employees and thus covered by the National Labor Relations Act, or whether they are managerial and thus excluded from the law.</p> <p>An NLRB regional director held that <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/nlrb-to-rule-if-university-faculty-fall-under-nlra/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/nlrb-to-rule-if-university-faculty-fall-under-nlra/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Man receives $4 million settlement in police confrontation case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/man-receives-4-million-settlement-in-police-confrontation-case/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/man-receives-4-million-settlement-in-police-confrontation-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 14:59:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Ogden</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verdicts and Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[warantless entry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful arrest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84628</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A 61-year-old Vallejo, Calif. man was awarded more than $4 million in a settlement with the Vallejo Police Department over a five-year-old confrontation that left him with a broken neck, lawyers for both sides said.</p> <p>Read the full article from the <em>Vallejo Times Herald</em>: <strong><a href="http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_20698844/vallejo-man-receives-4-million-settlement-police">Vallejo man receives $4 million settlement <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/man-receives-4-million-settlement-in-police-confrontation-case/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></a></strong></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/man-receives-4-million-settlement-in-police-confrontation-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>$4.1 million settlement reached for pregnant inmates who said they were shackled&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/4-1-million-settlement-reached-for-pregnant-inmates-who-said-they-were-shackled/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/4-1-million-settlement-reached-for-pregnant-inmates-who-said-they-were-shackled/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 14:57:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Ogden</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verdicts and Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illinois]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inmate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pregnancy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84627</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Cook County, Ill. officials have agreed to to pay more than $4 million to settle a lawsuit brought by pregnant women who said they were shackled at their hands and feet while they gave birth at the county jail.</p> <p>Read the full article from <em>NBC Chicago</em>: <strong><a href="http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/health/41-Million-Settlement-Reached-for-Shackled-Mothers-153326405.html">$4.1M Settlement Reached for <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/4-1-million-settlement-reached-for-pregnant-inmates-who-said-they-were-shackled/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></a></strong></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/4-1-million-settlement-reached-for-pregnant-inmates-who-said-they-were-shackled/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Transformers 3’ extra receives $18.5 million settlement in accident&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/transformers-3-extra-receives-18-5-million-settlement-in-accident/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/transformers-3-extra-receives-18-5-million-settlement-in-accident/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 14:55:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Ogden</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verdicts and Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accident]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[actor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brain damage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illinois]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84626</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Two top Hollywood film studios, makers of the high-grossing “Transformers” franchise, must ante up $18.5 million to a Chicago woman left brain-damaged by an injury sustained while working as an extra during a 2010 filming in Northwest Indiana.</p> <p>Read the full article from <em>The Chicago Sun-Times</em>: <strong><a href="http://www.suntimes.com/12723968-418/transformers-3-extra-receives-185-million-settlement-in-accident.html">‘Transformers 3’ extra receives <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/transformers-3-extra-receives-18-5-million-settlement-in-accident/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></a></strong></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/transformers-3-extra-receives-18-5-million-settlement-in-accident/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benchmarks: Is ‘shiny floor’ claim enough for slip-and-fall suit?&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/benchmarks-is-shiny-floor-claim-enough-for-slip-and-fall-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/benchmarks-is-shiny-floor-claim-enough-for-slip-and-fall-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 13:16:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[premises liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slip and fall]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84614</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2012/05/Neoclassical_Free_Fall.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-84617" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2012/05/Neoclassical_Free_Fall.jpg" alt="" width="136" height="181" /></a>Is a slip-and-fall plaintiff’s allegation that a floor was “shiny” sufficient to raise a jury issue as to whether it was safe to walk on? The Rhode Island Supreme Court faced that question last week.</p> <p>Maureen Habershaw presented the issue in <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/benchmarks-is-shiny-floor-claim-enough-for-slip-and-fall-suit/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/24/benchmarks-is-shiny-floor-claim-enough-for-slip-and-fall-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-5649" title="musicpiracy" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files//srv/www/lwusa/releases/20090526204234/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files//2009/06/musicpiracy.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />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 <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/23/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-music-downloading-case/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></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>
	</channel>
</rss>
