<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Legal Conservative &#187; interlocutory appeal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.woodringlawfirm.com/legal_conservative_blog/tag/interlocutory-appeal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.woodringlawfirm.com/legal_conservative_blog</link>
	<description>A discussion of law and cases from a conservative perspective</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:22:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Update on Sansom Odom Appeal 1st DCA opinion 09-5158</title>
		<link>http://www.woodringlawfirm.com/legal_conservative_blog/update-on-sansom-odom-appeal-ist-dca-opinion-09-5158/</link>
		<comments>http://www.woodringlawfirm.com/legal_conservative_blog/update-on-sansom-odom-appeal-ist-dca-opinion-09-5158/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:10:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Woodring Law</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1st DCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interlocutory appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[odom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[official misconduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perjury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[richburg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sansom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.woodringlawfirm.com/legal_conservative_blog/?p=128</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well if you remember the October 15th Post on the Motion to Dismiss charges against Sansom and Odom, we predicted the odds of a reversal on appeal would be slim, and the IST DCA has just turned down the appeal as to Sansom and Odom as one that that State had no jurisdiction to file.  [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.woodringlawfirm.com/legal_conservative_blog/update-on-sansom-odom-appeal-ist-dca-opinion-09-5158/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>1st DCA Case denying request for cert review of a MSJ denial predicated on statute of limitations</title>
		<link>http://www.woodringlawfirm.com/legal_conservative_blog/1st-dca-case-denying-request-for-cert-review-of-a-msj-denial-predicated-on-statute-of-limitations/</link>
		<comments>http://www.woodringlawfirm.com/legal_conservative_blog/1st-dca-case-denying-request-for-cert-review-of-a-msj-denial-predicated-on-statute-of-limitations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:54:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Woodring Law</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cert review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interlocutory appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislative issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motion for summary judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[msj]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.woodringlawfirm.com/legal_conservative_blog/?p=57</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an opinion issued today in  Abbey v. Patrick, the First District denied a cert petition request from a doctor who claimed he had a valid statute of limitations defense against a medical negligence suit.  The Court held that this was not an extraordinary case deserving of cert review, and did not reach the merits [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.woodringlawfirm.com/legal_conservative_blog/1st-dca-case-denying-request-for-cert-review-of-a-msj-denial-predicated-on-statute-of-limitations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
