<?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: Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2014/02/supreme-court-constitutional-law-roundup-5/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2014/02/supreme-court-constitutional-law-roundup-5/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:45:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.: SCOTUS considers shareholder class actions - Overlawyered		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2014/02/supreme-court-constitutional-law-roundup-5/comment-page-1/#comment-270877</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.: SCOTUS considers shareholder class actions - Overlawyered]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:45:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=43929#comment-270877</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Andrew Grossman reports on yesterday&#8217;s oral argument in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, which &#8220;may be the biggest business case of the term. &#8230;Basic [Basic v. Levinson, 1988, in which the Court dispensed with the reliance requirement in favor of the &#034;fraud on the market&#034; theory] came at the tail-end of the Court’s decades-long experiment in policymaking by creating and defining the contours of civil actions. &#8230; The chief barrier to overturning Basic may not be its logic, its wisdom, or even its correctness as a matter of law, but instead stare decisis.&#8221; Earlier here, here, here, and here. [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Andrew Grossman reports on yesterday&#8217;s oral argument in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, which &#8220;may be the biggest business case of the term. &#8230;Basic [Basic v. Levinson, 1988, in which the Court dispensed with the reliance requirement in favor of the &quot;fraud on the market&quot; theory] came at the tail-end of the Court’s decades-long experiment in policymaking by creating and defining the contours of civil actions. &#8230; The chief barrier to overturning Basic may not be its logic, its wisdom, or even its correctness as a matter of law, but instead stare decisis.&#8221; Earlier here, here, here, and here. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
