<?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"
	>

<channel>
	<title>From The Jury</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fromthejury.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fromthejury.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:51:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Calif. Court: Manufacturers Not Liable For Asbestos Parts Added To Products</title>
		<link>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/calif-court-manufacturers-not-liable-for-asbestos-parts-added-to-products/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/calif-court-manufacturers-not-liable-for-asbestos-parts-added-to-products/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:51:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:www.lexisnexis.com://440bb4ddbcde1e84fe0978a21a48cf89</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
LOS ANGELES - Employers and the makers of asbestos-containing parts they purchase have a duty to warn users about the dangers of asbestos, but not manufacturers of valves and pumps on which those parts are incorporated, a California appeals court held Feb. 16 (Alfred C. Hall and Bertie G. Hall v. Warren Pumps LLC, et al., No. B208275, Calif. App., 2nd Dist.; See 1/6/10, Page 12; 2010 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1088). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#38;keyenum=25271&#38;keytnum=0&#38;searchtype=get&#38;search=25-3 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Asb. 1 (2010)&#38;view=full&#38;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
LOS ANGELES - Employers and the makers of asbestos-containing parts they purchase have a duty to warn users about the dangers of asbestos, but not manufacturers of valves and pumps on which those parts are incorporated, a California appeals court held Feb. 16 (Alfred C. Hall and Bertie G. Hall v. Warren Pumps LLC, et al., No. B208275, Calif. App., 2nd Dist.; See 1/6/10, Page 12; 2010 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1088). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=25-3 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Asb. 1 (2010)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/calif-court-manufacturers-not-liable-for-asbestos-parts-added-to-products/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Florida Appeals Court Affirms, Reverses Decision In Reimbursement Suit</title>
		<link>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/florida-appeals-court-affirms-reverses-decision-in-reimbursement-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/florida-appeals-court-affirms-reverses-decision-in-reimbursement-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:51:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:www.lexisnexis.com://7f7105dea4f305b8cd528eb16a95b2e4</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - A Florida appeals court on Feb. 24 affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision determining what constitutes a provider and what needs to be considered in determining reimbursement rates to be paid to a hospital providing emergency services to patients who have insurance through health maintenance organizations that do not contract with the hospital (Baker County Medical Services Inc. v. Aetna Health Management, et al., No. 1D08-0067, Fla. App., 1st. Dist.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#38;keyenum=25271&#38;keytnum=0&#38;searchtype=get&#38;search=14-5 Mealey's Man. Care Liab. Rep. 1 (2010)&#38;view=full&#38;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - A Florida appeals court on Feb. 24 affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision determining what constitutes a provider and what needs to be considered in determining reimbursement rates to be paid to a hospital providing emergency services to patients who have insurance through health maintenance organizations that do not contract with the hospital (Baker County Medical Services Inc. v. Aetna Health Management, et al., No. 1D08-0067, Fla. App., 1st. Dist.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=14-5 Mealey's Man. Care Liab. Rep. 1 (2010)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/florida-appeals-court-affirms-reverses-decision-in-reimbursement-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>North Carolina Judge Affirms Jurisdiction Over Claim Of Marine Dependent Injury</title>
		<link>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/north-carolina-judge-affirms-jurisdiction-over-claim-of-marine-dependent-injury/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/north-carolina-judge-affirms-jurisdiction-over-claim-of-marine-dependent-injury/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:51:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:www.lexisnexis.com://8f1523b4a869772d3f447beea3ec8fa9</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
WILMINGTON, N.C. - The Federal Tort Claims Act claims of the wife of a U.S. Marine who alleges exposure to chlorinated solvents while she lived at Camp Lejeune, N.C., were filed in a timely fashion and are not subject to the discretionary function exception for waiver of sovereign immunity under the act, the judge presiding over the case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina said Feb. 24 (Laura J. Jones v. United States, No. 09-106, E.D. N.C.; See 1/12/10, Page 16.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#38;keyenum=25271&#38;keytnum=0&#38;searchtype=get&#38;search=18-23 Mealey's Emerg. Toxic Torts 1 (2010)&#38;view=full&#38;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
WILMINGTON, N.C. - The Federal Tort Claims Act claims of the wife of a U.S. Marine who alleges exposure to chlorinated solvents while she lived at Camp Lejeune, N.C., were filed in a timely fashion and are not subject to the discretionary function exception for waiver of sovereign immunity under the act, the judge presiding over the case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina said Feb. 24 (Laura J. Jones v. United States, No. 09-106, E.D. N.C.; See 1/12/10, Page 16.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=18-23 Mealey's Emerg. Toxic Torts 1 (2010)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/north-carolina-judge-affirms-jurisdiction-over-claim-of-marine-dependent-injury/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Asbestos Exclusion Precludes Coverage For Cleanup Costs, Removal</title>
		<link>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/asbestos-exclusion-precludes-coverage-for-cleanup-costs-removal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/asbestos-exclusion-precludes-coverage-for-cleanup-costs-removal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:51:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:www.lexisnexis.com://9845d8b1bcaf88b8dbbae21b238c0f4a</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
TRENTON, N.J. - An insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured or the owner of the building where its insured removed a roof because the owner of the building was not named as an additional insured and the policy includes an asbestos exclusion that precludes coverage for any costs arising out of the removal of asbestos, a New Jersey federal judge said Feb. 22 (Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Somerville Fidelco Associates LP, et al., No. 07-2763, D. N.J.; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15258). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#38;keyenum=25271&#38;keytnum=0&#38;searchtype=get&#38;search=24-17 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Ins. 1 (2010)&#38;view=full&#38;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
TRENTON, N.J. - An insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured or the owner of the building where its insured removed a roof because the owner of the building was not named as an additional insured and the policy includes an asbestos exclusion that precludes coverage for any costs arising out of the removal of asbestos, a New Jersey federal judge said Feb. 22 (Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Somerville Fidelco Associates LP, et al., No. 07-2763, D. N.J.; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15258). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=24-17 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Ins. 1 (2010)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/asbestos-exclusion-precludes-coverage-for-cleanup-costs-removal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Doctor Is Found To Be Qualified, But Not His Opinions</title>
		<link>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/doctor-is-found-to-be-qualified-but-not-his-opinions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/doctor-is-found-to-be-qualified-but-not-his-opinions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:51:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:www.lexisnexis.com://6e61f3ac6e41acefbc7706b88effe98b</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
DES MOINES, Iowa - The Iowa Supreme Court disagreed with a trial judge's finding that a plaintiff's expert was inherently unqualified to render opinions in a phenylpropanolamine (PPA) injury case but on Feb. 5 said the expert's opinions did not have sufficient scientific support (Bryan Ranes v. Adams Laboratories Inc., et al., No. 06-1428, Iowa Sup.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#38;keyenum=25271&#38;keytnum=0&#38;searchtype=get&#38;search=3-2 Mealey's Diet Drug Report 1 (2010)&#38;view=full&#38;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
DES MOINES, Iowa - The Iowa Supreme Court disagreed with a trial judge's finding that a plaintiff's expert was inherently unqualified to render opinions in a phenylpropanolamine (PPA) injury case but on Feb. 5 said the expert's opinions did not have sufficient scientific support (Bryan Ranes v. Adams Laboratories Inc., et al., No. 06-1428, Iowa Sup.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-2 Mealey's Diet Drug Report 1 (2010)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/doctor-is-found-to-be-qualified-but-not-his-opinions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Parties Debate Debts Related to Fee Awards At U.S. Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/parties-debate-debts-related-to-fee-awards-at-us-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/parties-debate-debts-related-to-fee-awards-at-us-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:51:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:www.lexisnexis.com://b1cbd2f682340664e7add0ac63bf8ce0</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a case that would have implications for debtors who file for personal bankruptcy, an attorney for the U.S. government on Feb. 22 told the U.S. Supreme Court that attorney fee awards to prevailing parties under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) are deemed taxable income to which the government is entitled (Michael J. Astrue v. Catherine G. Ratliff, No. 08-1322, U.S. Sup.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#38;keyenum=25271&#38;keytnum=0&#38;searchtype=get&#38;search=5-1 LexisNexis Bankr. Report 1 (2010)&#38;view=full&#38;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a case that would have implications for debtors who file for personal bankruptcy, an attorney for the U.S. government on Feb. 22 told the U.S. Supreme Court that attorney fee awards to prevailing parties under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) are deemed taxable income to which the government is entitled (Michael J. Astrue v. Catherine G. Ratliff, No. 08-1322, U.S. Sup.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=5-1 LexisNexis Bankr. Report 1 (2010)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/parties-debate-debts-related-to-fee-awards-at-us-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court:  Copyright Act Registration Requirement Not Jurisdictional</title>
		<link>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/supreme-court-copyright-act-registration-requirement-not-jurisdictional/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/supreme-court-copyright-act-registration-requirement-not-jurisdictional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:51:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:www.lexisnexis.com://f668fdc5099650f78c9aeaeb84120db0</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. Supreme Court on March 2 cleared the way for an $18 million global settlement of copyright infringement claims levied by a class of freelancers against electronic publishers and databases (Reed Elsevier Inc., et al. v. Irvin Muchnick, et al., No. 08-103, U.S. Sup.) (Editor's Note: Reed Elsevier Inc. is the parent company of LexisNexis, of which Mealey Publications is a division).
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?showcidslinks=on&#38;searchtype=bo&#38;search=Supreme%20Court%3A%20%20Copyright%20Act%20Registration%20Requirement%20Not%20Jurisdictional&#38;source=mealey;mealey&#38;view=full&#38;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. Supreme Court on March 2 cleared the way for an $18 million global settlement of copyright infringement claims levied by a class of freelancers against electronic publishers and databases (Reed Elsevier Inc., et al. v. Irvin Muchnick, et al., No. 08-103, U.S. Sup.) (Editor's Note: Reed Elsevier Inc. is the parent company of LexisNexis, of which Mealey Publications is a division).
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;searchtype=bo&amp;search=Supreme%20Court%3A%20%20Copyright%20Act%20Registration%20Requirement%20Not%20Jurisdictional&amp;source=mealey;mealey&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/supreme-court-copyright-act-registration-requirement-not-jurisdictional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>California Jury Says Allergan Didn&#8217;t Fail To Warn About Botox Risks</title>
		<link>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/california-jury-says-allergan-didnt-fail-to-warn-about-botox-risks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/california-jury-says-allergan-didnt-fail-to-warn-about-botox-risks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:51:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:www.lexisnexis.com://4db00b6ef5e87483ccbaf224dc77019b</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
SANTA ANA, Calif. -- A California state court jury on March 2 found that Allergan Inc. did not fail to warn about the risks of Botox in a case involving the death of a cerebral palsy victim on whom the drug was used off-label to treat leg spasms (Dee Spears, et al. v. Allergan, Inc., No. 30-2008-00180033-cu-mt-cxc, Calif. Super., Orange Co.).
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?showcidslinks=on&#38;searchtype=bo&#38;search=California%20Jury%20Says%20Allergan%20Didn%27t%20Fail%20To%20Warn%20About%20Botox%20Risks&#38;source=mealey;mealey&#38;view=full&#38;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
SANTA ANA, Calif. -- A California state court jury on March 2 found that Allergan Inc. did not fail to warn about the risks of Botox in a case involving the death of a cerebral palsy victim on whom the drug was used off-label to treat leg spasms (Dee Spears, et al. v. Allergan, Inc., No. 30-2008-00180033-cu-mt-cxc, Calif. Super., Orange Co.).
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;searchtype=bo&amp;search=California%20Jury%20Says%20Allergan%20Didn%27t%20Fail%20To%20Warn%20About%20Botox%20Risks&amp;source=mealey;mealey&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/california-jury-says-allergan-didnt-fail-to-warn-about-botox-risks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Texas Jury Hands Couple $58.2 Million In Marathon Dispute With Home Builder</title>
		<link>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/texas-jury-hands-couple-582-million-in-marathon-dispute-with-home-builder/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/texas-jury-hands-couple-582-million-in-marathon-dispute-with-home-builder/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:51:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:www.lexisnexis.com://b893b8c3839049b9caf8859e69de52ea</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
FORT WORTH, Texas - A Texas jury found March 1 that a couple pursuing a long-running battle with their builder deserve more than $58 million in compensatory and punitive damages, but the builder plans to appeal the verdict (Robert E. Cull and S. Jane Cull v. Perry Homes, et al., No. 236-184813-00, Texas Dist., 236th Judicial Dist., Tarrant Co.; See September 2008, Page 6). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#38;keyenum=25271&#38;keytnum=0&#38;searchtype=get&#38;search=11-2 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Constr. Defects 1 (2010)&#38;view=full&#38;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
FORT WORTH, Texas - A Texas jury found March 1 that a couple pursuing a long-running battle with their builder deserve more than $58 million in compensatory and punitive damages, but the builder plans to appeal the verdict (Robert E. Cull and S. Jane Cull v. Perry Homes, et al., No. 236-184813-00, Texas Dist., 236th Judicial Dist., Tarrant Co.; See September 2008, Page 6). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=11-2 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Constr. Defects 1 (2010)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/texas-jury-hands-couple-582-million-in-marathon-dispute-with-home-builder/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Congressmen, Companies Ask D.C. Circuit To Review Endangerment Finding</title>
		<link>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/congressmen-companies-ask-dc-circuit-to-review-endangerment-finding/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/congressmen-companies-ask-dc-circuit-to-review-endangerment-finding/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:51:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:www.lexisnexis.com://9e8b9115537122eba6f5c15b6a0ad507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Thirteen U.S. representatives and 17 companies and groups on Feb. 9 asked the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to review the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and the environment (U.S. Representative John Linder, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. N/A., D.C. Cir.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#38;keyenum=25271&#38;keytnum=0&#38;searchtype=get&#38;search=23-6 Mealey's Poll. Liab. Rep. 1 (2010)&#38;view=full&#38;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Thirteen U.S. representatives and 17 companies and groups on Feb. 9 asked the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to review the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and the environment (U.S. Representative John Linder, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. N/A., D.C. Cir.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=23-6 Mealey's Poll. Liab. Rep. 1 (2010)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144">Full story on lexis.com</a>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fromthejury.com/2010/03/10/congressmen-companies-ask-dc-circuit-to-review-endangerment-finding/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
