<?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>LexUtah &#187; In The News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lexutah.com/category/in-the-news/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lexutah.com</link>
	<description>Utah's Legal Scene</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:06:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Vague Post-Trial Motions May Not Extend Your Time for Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/vague-post-trial-motions-may-not-extend-your-time-for-appeal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/vague-post-trial-motions-may-not-extend-your-time-for-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:06:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/vague-post-trial-motions-may-not-extend-your-time-for-appeal/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Utah Supreme Court sent a reminder to all parties considering appeal: file a timely appeal.&#160; And, just as importantly, if you are unclear what type of motion or whether a motion under a particular rule will extend your deadline to appeal, file a timely appeal. In WCF v. Argonaut Insurance, 2011 UT 61, Argonaut [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/vague-post-trial-motions-may-not-extend-your-time-for-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Utah Court of Appeals Supports Jury Prerogative in Medical Malpractice Case</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/utah-court-of-appeals-supports-jury-prerogative-in-medical-malpractice-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/utah-court-of-appeals-supports-jury-prerogative-in-medical-malpractice-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:49:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/utah-court-of-appeals-supports-jury-prerogative-in-medical-malpractice-case/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff lost at trial when the jury found that the plaintiff had failed to provide evidence of causation between his alleged injury and damages.&#160; Plaintiff moved for a new trial asserting he had put on evidence of causation through his expert. The Utah Court of Appeals sustained Second District Court Judge Michael D. Lyon’s (no [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/utah-court-of-appeals-supports-jury-prerogative-in-medical-malpractice-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Accounting Malpractice Claims Survive Dismissal in Recent Questionable Ruling in Chaikovsa, LLC v. Ernst &amp; Young, LLP</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/accounting-malpractice-claims-survive-dismissal-in-recent-questionable-ruling-in-chaikovsa-llc-v-ernst-young-llp/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/accounting-malpractice-claims-survive-dismissal-in-recent-questionable-ruling-in-chaikovsa-llc-v-ernst-young-llp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:52:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/?p=239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Privity of contract is alive and well! —but can be limited as defendant Ernst &#38; Young found out.  E&#38;Y moved for dismissal of accounting malpractice negligence claims asserting that plaintiff lacked privity of contract.  The court rejected this position finding “that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that defendant had a duty to act in a nonnegligent [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/accounting-malpractice-claims-survive-dismissal-in-recent-questionable-ruling-in-chaikovsa-llc-v-ernst-young-llp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Understanding the Appeal of Your Opponent&#8217;s Case Is a Key to Winning at Trial.</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/understanding-the-appeal-of-your-opponents-case-is-a-key-to-winning-at-trial/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/understanding-the-appeal-of-your-opponents-case-is-a-key-to-winning-at-trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:01:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harry Plotkin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mock Trial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/?p=230</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Showing the jury you understand your opponent's case will let them know you recognize the difference in opinion, have a response overcoming the difference, and clearly do not concede your opponent’s points.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/understanding-the-appeal-of-your-opponents-case-is-a-key-to-winning-at-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BYU Successfully Disqualifies Winston &amp; Strawn in Lucrative Pfizer Celebrex Patent Case</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/byu-successfully-disqualifies-winston-strawn-in-lucrative-pfizer-celebrex-patent-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/byu-successfully-disqualifies-winston-strawn-in-lucrative-pfizer-celebrex-patent-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:07:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BYU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Ted Stewart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pfizer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Winston & Strawn]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/byu-successfully-disqualifies-winston-strawn-in-lucrative-pfizer-celebrex-patent-case/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a pending Celebrex patent action worth potentially a billion dollars brought by Brigham Young University against Pfizer Inc., BYU recently scored a few points by convincing Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells that Pfizer’s counsel should be disqualified.  Pfizer is represented by Winston &#38; Strawn, including partner Gene Schaerr.  Mr. Schaerr previously represented BYU in unrelated [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/byu-successfully-disqualifies-winston-strawn-in-lucrative-pfizer-celebrex-patent-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>You Make the Call: Does Vehicle GPS Tracking Without a Warrant Violate Any Right?</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/you-make-the-call-does-vehicle-gps-tracking-without-a-warrant-violate-any-right/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/you-make-the-call-does-vehicle-gps-tracking-without-a-warrant-violate-any-right/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:40:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/you-make-the-call-does-vehicle-gps-tracking-without-a-warrant-violate-any-right/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When I was kid I watched “This Week in Baseball” (also known at the time as “TWiB”) and there was always a cool bit about showing a replay from the week in which a close play was shown with a questionable umpire ruling.  The tagline was “you make the call!” and there would be a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/you-make-the-call-does-vehicle-gps-tracking-without-a-warrant-violate-any-right/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>That Case You Settled Could Rise Up and Bite You- Just Ask Toyota</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/that-case-you-settled-could-rise-up-and-bite-you-just-ask-toyota/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/that-case-you-settled-could-rise-up-and-bite-you-just-ask-toyota/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:47:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/that-case-you-settled-could-rise-up-and-bite-you-just-ask-toyota/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Texas state court judge (I know, not the best source of legal precedent) recently lifted a stay on litigation between a paralyzed woman who settled her Camry roll-over claim against Toyota and then later sought to set aside the $1.5 mil settlement . . . based on undisclosed Toyota documents.  The plaintiff asserts she [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/that-case-you-settled-could-rise-up-and-bite-you-just-ask-toyota/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Utah Supreme Court Expressly Recognizes the Cause of Action for Negligent Credentialing Against Health Care Providers</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/utah-supreme-court-expressly-recognizes-the-cause-of-action-for-negligent-credentialing-against-health-care-providers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/utah-supreme-court-expressly-recognizes-the-cause-of-action-for-negligent-credentialing-against-health-care-providers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 20:05:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/utah-supreme-court-expressly-recognizes-the-cause-of-action-for-negligent-credentialing-against-health-care-providers/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Archuleta v. St. Mark’s Hospital, the Utah Supreme Court, in a 4-2 opinion released today, overturned a district court decision which had determined that Utah Code sections 58-13-5(7), 58-13-4, and 26-25-1 do not bar negligent credentialing claims brought against health care providers.  The court analyzed each code section and found that the Utah Legislature [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/utah-supreme-court-expressly-recognizes-the-cause-of-action-for-negligent-credentialing-against-health-care-providers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Utah, Attorney&#8217;s Fees Are Valid, Consequential Damages for Another&#8217;s Negligence If It Causes You to Be Sued</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/articles/in-utah-attorneys-fees-are-valid-consequential-damages-for-anothers-negligence-if-it-causes-you-to-be-sued/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/articles/in-utah-attorneys-fees-are-valid-consequential-damages-for-anothers-negligence-if-it-causes-you-to-be-sued/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:01:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney's fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/?p=219</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We all know that the ‘American Rule’ applies to bar an award for attorney’s fees unless otherwise permitted by statute or contract.  Utah recognizes an exception to the American Rule “when the natural consequence of one&#8217;s negligence is another&#8217;s involvement in a dispute with a third party,&#8221; which is also known as the &#8220;third-party tort [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/articles/in-utah-attorneys-fees-are-valid-consequential-damages-for-anothers-negligence-if-it-causes-you-to-be-sued/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Utah Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Products Liability Statute</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/utah-supreme-court-upholds-constitutionality-of-products-liability-statute/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/utah-supreme-court-upholds-constitutionality-of-products-liability-statute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:56:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Rules & Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apportionment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enhanced injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joint and several liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presumption of non-defectiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Products Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Restatement of Torts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/?p=216</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Utah Supreme Court issued Egbert v. Nissan (&#8220;Egbert II”) in which it has expressly held: 1) The rebuttable presumption of non-defectiveness in product liability cases is constitutional and has been effective in Utah for more than 20 years; and 2) Restatement (Third) Torts section 16(b-d) regarding enhanced injury claims is rejected.  An “enhanced injury [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/utah-supreme-court-upholds-constitutionality-of-products-liability-statute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

