<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with appeals</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/appeals</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'appeals' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:20:36 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:20:36 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Eric Volz Freed</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/67679/Eric%2DVolz%2DFreed</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-12-17-nicaragua-sentence-overturned_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip"&gt;Eric Volz Freed.&lt;/a&gt; Following a thirty-year sentence and a later appeal, Eric Volz was set free by a Nicaraguan court.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/59675/FREE-ERIC-VOLZ&quot;&gt;As discussed in The Blue previously.&lt;/a&gt;  His family&apos;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.friendsofericvolz.com/updates.htm&quot;&gt;statement. &lt;/a&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2007:site.67679</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:20:36 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>appeals</category>
		<category>Eric_Voz</category>
		<category>Nicaragua</category>
		<dc:creator>John of Michigan</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>FED. R. APP. P.  32.1</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/49149/FED%2DR%2DAPP%2DP%2D321</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.nonpublication.com/32.1.HTML"&gt;Proposed Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1.&lt;/a&gt; Proposed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/Reports/AP10-2005.pdf#page=2&quot;&gt;Rule 32.1&lt;/a&gt; [.pdf] is an attempt to resolve a dispute in federal court practice over the propriety of citations to unpublished opinions.  It is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1081792928522&quot;&gt;argument &lt;/a&gt;that has been played out in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jol/vol41_2/velamoor.php&quot;&gt;academic &lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nonpublication.com/ARTICLES.HTML&quot;&gt;papers&lt;/a&gt; and Circuit Courts.  Judge Richard Arnold of the 8th Circuit, writing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/993917P.pdf&quot;&gt;for the majority, held&lt;/a&gt; that local rules which declare that unpublished opinions are not precedent are unconstitutional under Article III.  
&lt;em&gt;Anastasoff v. United States&lt;/em&gt;, 223 F.3d 898, 900(8th Cir. 2000), &lt;em&gt;vacated as moot on reh&apos;g en banc&lt;/em&gt;, 235 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir.2000).  Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3AE08EE375DF613B88256AD1005BFD3B/$file/9956472.pdf?openelement&quot;&gt;disagreed&lt;/a&gt;, holding that nonprecedential decisions are not inconsistent with the exercise of the judicial power.  &lt;em&gt;Hart v. Massanari&lt;/em&gt;, 226 F.3d 1155, 1163 (9th Cir. 2001).  The proposed Rule would resolve the circuit split, but the &lt;a href=&quot;http://hjbashman.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_hjbashman_archive.html&quot;&gt;debate rages on.&lt;/a&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2006:site.49149</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:05:16 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>32.1</category>
		<category>Anastasoff</category>
		<category>appeals</category>
		<category>Appellate</category>
		<category>Arnold</category>
		<category>decisis</category>
		<category>DesignatedForPublication</category>
		<category>EighthCircuit</category>
		<category>fairness</category>
		<category>Federal</category>
		<category>FederalRuleofAppellateProcedure</category>
		<category>Hart</category>
		<category>Kozinski</category>
		<category>law</category>
		<category>Massanari</category>
		<category>NinthCircuit</category>
		<category>of</category>
		<category>opinions</category>
		<category>precedent</category>
		<category>Procedure</category>
		<category>Rule</category>
		<category>stare</category>
		<category>StareDecisis</category>
		<category>unpublished</category>
		<dc:creator>dios</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Circuit Court Refuses to Hear Allegiance Case</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/23948/Circuit%2DCourt%2DRefuses%2Dto%2DHear%2DAllegiance%2DCase</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,267702,00.html"&gt;Michael Newdow&lt;/a&gt; is probably smiling today.  The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals  has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/28/pledge.of.allegiance.ap/index.html&quot;&gt;refused to reconsider&lt;/a&gt; last June&apos;s ruling finding the Pledge of Allegiance to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/18074&quot;&gt;unconstitutional&lt;/a&gt;.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.23948</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:30:07 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>appeals</category>
		<category>constitution</category>
		<category>michaelnewdow</category>
		<category>newdow</category>
		<category>pledgeofallegiance</category>
		<category>unitedstates</category>
		<category>us</category>
		<dc:creator>mrbula</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/18694/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2507FB5DDCB94D7088256C000051F3B8/$file/9856453.pdf?openelement"&gt;&quot;If this were a sci-fi melodrama, it might be called Speech-Zilla meets Trademark Kong. ... The parties are advised to chill.&quot; (PDF file)&lt;/a&gt; The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is at it again. Aqua&apos;s hit song &quot;Barbie Girl&quot; is judged not to be a violation of Mattel&apos;s trademark, but to be a parody protected by free speech. And all laboured judgely joshing aside, the decision offers a nice summary of trademark law.  Get a plain HTML news story from CNN &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/25/barbie.reut/index.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. (The chorus is running through your brain now, right? And it&apos;s going to be there all day, too. *snicker*)  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.18694</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:20:20 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>appeals</category>
		<category>aqua</category>
		<category>barbie</category>
		<category>barbiegirl</category>
		<category>constitution</category>
		<category>firstamendment</category>
		<category>freespeech</category>
		<category>law</category>
		<category>mattel</category>
		<category>ninthcircuit</category>
		<category>trademark</category>
		<category>unitedstates</category>
		<dc:creator>maudlin</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


