<?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/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Update: California high court narrows Proposition 64	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/01/update-california-high-court-narrows-proposition-64/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/01/update-california-high-court-narrows-proposition-64/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:56:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: New Benjamin Barton book, &#8220;The Lawyer-Judge Bias in the American Legal System&#8221;		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/01/update-california-high-court-narrows-proposition-64/comment-page-1/#comment-116037</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[New Benjamin Barton book, &#8220;The Lawyer-Judge Bias in the American Legal System&#8221;]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:56:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=21211#comment-116037</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] Earlier on Barton&#8217;s book, including a video, here. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Earlier on Barton&#8217;s book, including a video, here. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: February 22 roundup		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/01/update-california-high-court-narrows-proposition-64/comment-page-1/#comment-115844</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[February 22 roundup]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:07:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=21211#comment-115844</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] Calif. Kwikset decision not entirely a debacle for defendants [Russell Jackson, earlier] [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Calif. Kwikset decision not entirely a debacle for defendants [Russell Jackson, earlier] [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: PointOfLaw Forum		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/01/update-california-high-court-narrows-proposition-64/comment-page-1/#comment-115232</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PointOfLaw Forum]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:12:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=21211#comment-115232</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;Around the web, February 13...&lt;/strong&gt;

Tort reform in Wisconsin? Package passed to undo bad Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions, establish Daubert standards, cap punitive damages. [Sachse; Shopfloor; ALEC; NFIB] &quot;Uncommon Law: Ruminations on Public Nuisance&quot; [Faulk @ BEPress] Does David Fru...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Around the web, February 13&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Tort reform in Wisconsin? Package passed to undo bad Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions, establish Daubert standards, cap punitive damages. [Sachse; Shopfloor; ALEC; NFIB] &#8220;Uncommon Law: Ruminations on Public Nuisance&#8221; [Faulk @ BEPress] Does David Fru&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: AMcA		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/01/update-california-high-court-narrows-proposition-64/comment-page-1/#comment-114438</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[AMcA]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:00:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=21211#comment-114438</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[It&#039;d be fun to cross examine the plaintiff about whether he&#039;d have bought another lock because of those dastardly Tiawanese screws.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;d be fun to cross examine the plaintiff about whether he&#8217;d have bought another lock because of those dastardly Tiawanese screws.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: David Schwartz		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/01/update-california-high-court-narrows-proposition-64/comment-page-1/#comment-114407</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Schwartz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:55:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=21211#comment-114407</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I have thought about this case a a lot. At first, I agreed with the dissent, but now I agree with the majority. If you buy a product that turns out not to be what you thought it was, you have suffered a loss. The silly example would be if you bought what you thought was a solid gold bar for a price you felt was fair for a solid gold bar. If it turns out the bar was gold-plated silver, you have suffered an actual loss. Though in this case, the difference affects the dollar value of the bar, that is not the point. The loss comes from having something you value less than what you thought you had.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have thought about this case a a lot. At first, I agreed with the dissent, but now I agree with the majority. If you buy a product that turns out not to be what you thought it was, you have suffered a loss. The silly example would be if you bought what you thought was a solid gold bar for a price you felt was fair for a solid gold bar. If it turns out the bar was gold-plated silver, you have suffered an actual loss. Though in this case, the difference affects the dollar value of the bar, that is not the point. The loss comes from having something you value less than what you thought you had.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Bumper		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/01/update-california-high-court-narrows-proposition-64/comment-page-1/#comment-114275</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bumper]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:01:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=21211#comment-114275</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[If it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it&#039;s probably a duck.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it&#8217;s probably a duck.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jack Olson		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/01/update-california-high-court-narrows-proposition-64/comment-page-1/#comment-114274</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jack Olson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:56:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=21211#comment-114274</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[One of the main points Barton makes in his book is that while lawyers doubt that judges&#039; decisions are biased in favor of lawyers, that seems obvious to everybody else.  I suspect that most lawyers would reject the laymen&#039;s opinion as ignorant:  &quot;You just don&#039;t know how the legal system works.&quot;  Maybe they don&#039;t know how the legal system works, but they do know for whom it works and for whom it doesn&#039;t.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the main points Barton makes in his book is that while lawyers doubt that judges&#8217; decisions are biased in favor of lawyers, that seems obvious to everybody else.  I suspect that most lawyers would reject the laymen&#8217;s opinion as ignorant:  &#8220;You just don&#8217;t know how the legal system works.&#8221;  Maybe they don&#8217;t know how the legal system works, but they do know for whom it works and for whom it doesn&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jay Markowitz		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/01/update-california-high-court-narrows-proposition-64/comment-page-1/#comment-114225</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jay Markowitz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 21:40:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=21211#comment-114225</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Damages? We don&#039;t need no stinkin&#039; damages!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Damages? We don&#8217;t need no stinkin&#8217; damages!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mannie		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/01/update-california-high-court-narrows-proposition-64/comment-page-1/#comment-114208</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mannie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:25:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=21211#comment-114208</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I need to stop selling anything in California.  The place is too dangerous.

My six bits worth of eBay business won&#039;t tip the cart over, but it&#039;s too risky to do business there.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I need to stop selling anything in California.  The place is too dangerous.</p>
<p>My six bits worth of eBay business won&#8217;t tip the cart over, but it&#8217;s too risky to do business there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
