<?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: SCOTUS: trial lawyers can&#8217;t scoop up DMV names to solicit cases	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/06/scotus-trial-lawyers-cant-scoop-dmv-names-solicit-cases/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/06/scotus-trial-lawyers-cant-scoop-dmv-names-solicit-cases/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:30:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Supreme Court Reaffirms Driver Privacy &#124; JOLT Digest		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/06/scotus-trial-lawyers-cant-scoop-dmv-names-solicit-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-221560</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Supreme Court Reaffirms Driver Privacy &#124; JOLT Digest]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jun 2013 12:01:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=39314#comment-221560</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] Overlawyered summarizes the holding, speculating which points may be more relevant on remand. Cato expresses surprise at how every Justice switched sides since another significant privacy case two weeks ago, Maryland v. King, No. 12-207, 569 U.S. ___ (June 3, 2013) (holding that post-arrest cheek swabs were legitimate police booking procedures under the Fourth Amendment). NYTimes mentions that this could expose routine attorney activity to “huge” civil and criminal liability. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Overlawyered summarizes the holding, speculating which points may be more relevant on remand. Cato expresses surprise at how every Justice switched sides since another significant privacy case two weeks ago, Maryland v. King, No. 12-207, 569 U.S. ___ (June 3, 2013) (holding that post-arrest cheek swabs were legitimate police booking procedures under the Fourth Amendment). NYTimes mentions that this could expose routine attorney activity to “huge” civil and criminal liability. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
