<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:openSearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/" xmlns:blogger="http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:gd="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0" version="2.0"><channel><atom:id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-775715351203457639</atom:id><lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2024 07:41:07 +0000</lastBuildDate><category>case law</category><category>law</category><category>Fourteenth Amendment</category><category>civil procedure</category><category>school</category><category>voters</category><category>Federal Employers&#39; Liability Act</category><category>Kentucky</category><category>Marshall sued Donovan and Daum</category><category>Oatis further testified</category><category>United States</category><category>acting</category><category>alien</category><category>battery</category><category>constitutional law</category><category>contemporaneous legislative construction</category><category>criminal law</category><category>government</category><category>justice</category><category>mail</category><category>messages</category><category>negligence</category><category>peace</category><category>people</category><category>personal injuries</category><category>personal jurisdiction</category><category>police</category><category>political</category><category>recovery</category><category>rights</category><category>subway</category><category>taxation</category><category>torts</category><title>Law School Nirvana</title><description></description><link>http://law-school-nirvana.blogspot.com/</link><managingEditor>noreply@blogger.com (Law School Nirvana)</managingEditor><generator>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>4</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-775715351203457639.post-5717453255009612660</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:24:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-06T07:35:50.294-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">case law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">civil procedure</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Federal Employers&#39; Liability Act</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">mail</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">messages</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">negligence</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">personal injuries</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">recovery</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">subway</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">torts</category><title>Whitaker v. Terminal R. Ass&#39;n of St. Louis</title><atom:summary type="text">This is a suit to recover damages for personal injuries against the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, the employer of the plaintiff, and the Railway Express Agency. The defendants are charged with joint negligence and upon trial a verdict for $2,000 was returned against both of them. This amount was reduced by remittitur to $1500, for which sum judgment was entered, and both defendants </atom:summary><link>http://law-school-nirvana.blogspot.com/2008/11/whitaker-v-terminal-r-assn-of-st-louis.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Law School Nirvana)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-775715351203457639.post-8434341537144470278</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:42:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-06T06:55:51.042-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">acting</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">battery</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">case law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">civil procedure</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">criminal law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">justice</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Oatis further testified</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">peace</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">personal jurisdiction</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">police</category><title>Williams v. State</title><atom:summary type="text">The plaintiff in error, John Edward Williams (hereinafter defendant), was charged with battery to a police officer, in violation of sec. 940.205, Stats. 1 On June 3, 1968, defendant was arrested and bound over for trial after a preliminary hearing. Defendant entered a not guilty plea to the information and was tried before a jury. On August 22, 1968, defendant was found guilty as charged.      On</atom:summary><link>http://law-school-nirvana.blogspot.com/2008/11/williams-v-state.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Law School Nirvana)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-775715351203457639.post-280970629221946039</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:34:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-06T06:42:06.311-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">case law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">contemporaneous legislative construction</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Fourteenth Amendment</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">government</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">people</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">political</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">rights</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">school</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">United States</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">voters</category><title>How Does the Fourteenth Amendment Affect Voters?</title><atom:summary type="text">The eleventh article of the state constitution declares that certain enumerated funds, together with any sum that may be &quot;raised in the state by taxation or otherwise for the purposes of education, shall be held inviolate for the purpose of sustaining a system of common schools. The interest and dividends of said funds, together with any sum which may be produced for that purpose by taxation or </atom:summary><link>http://law-school-nirvana.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-does-fourteenth-amendment-affect.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Law School Nirvana)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-775715351203457639.post-5241652350700548526</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:25:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-06T06:31:49.998-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">alien</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">case law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">constitutional law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Fourteenth Amendment</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Kentucky</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Marshall sued Donovan and Daum</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">school</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">taxation</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">voters</category><title>Marshall v. Donovan, &amp;C.</title><atom:summary type="text">Marshall v. Donovan, &amp;amp;C., 73 Ky. 681 (Ky. App. 1874).Marshall sued Donovan and Daum for the forcible seizure and conversion of a cow of the value of sixty dollars. They answered, and stated that Daum was the sheriff of Bracken County, that Donovan was his deputy, and that they seized and sold the cow to satisfy a tax-claim against Marshall arising out of a levy made pursuant to the provisions</atom:summary><link>http://law-school-nirvana.blogspot.com/2008/11/marshall-v-donovan.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Law School Nirvana)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total></item></channel></rss>