<?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>Davids' Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pspc.com/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pspc.com</link>
	<description>David vs. Goliath view from Oregon trial lawyers at Paul &#38; Sugerman, PC</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 14:07:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>PDX Verdict: Adidas v. Payless - So what&#8217;s the Chamber of Commerce to do?</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/05/pdx-verdict-adidas-v-payless-so-whats-the-chamber-of-commerce-to-do</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/05/pdx-verdict-adidas-v-payless-so-whats-the-chamber-of-commerce-to-do#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 14:00:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon consumer lawyer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[frivolous lawsuits]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[tort reform]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Adidas lawsuit]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[civil justice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/?p=150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Oregoinian&#8217;s Brent Hunsberger reports on this eye-catching honking huge trade infringement verdict handed down in U.S. District Court in Portland yesterday. Looks like the grand total&#8211;some $305 million&#8211;is a lot of cash for a dispute over whether Payless stores ripped off Adidas by selling knock-off products.
I&#8217;ve got no cause to question all this, except [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/05/pdx-verdict-adidas-v-payless-so-whats-the-chamber-of-commerce-to-do/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oregon Supreme Court and Philip Morris&#8211;Not really &#8220;irony&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/05/oregon-supreme-court-and-philip-morris-not-really-irony</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/05/oregon-supreme-court-and-philip-morris-not-really-irony#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 20:00:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon Supreme Court]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Portland injury lawyer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[sugerman]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[tobacco]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[medical monitoring]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[tobacco case]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/?p=149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So the mainstream press picked up on the fact that the Oregon Supreme Court has decided a major case against Philip Morris and one in its favor.  But the story that is republished on MSNBC includes a law professor&#8217;s odd view of irony.
Here&#8217;s the excerpt:
&#8220;Ben Zipursky, a Fordham University School of Law professor who specializes [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/05/oregon-supreme-court-and-philip-morris-not-really-irony/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Portland jury finds in favor of homeless woman in police misconduct case</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/05/portland-jury-finds-in-favor-of-homeless-woman-in-police-misconduct-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/05/portland-jury-finds-in-favor-of-homeless-woman-in-police-misconduct-case#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 May 2008 23:21:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Portland injury lawyer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[The Oregonian]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[civil justice system]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[civil rights]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[injury]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[police misconduct]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[sugerman]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[excessive force]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[federal court]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Oregon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/?p=147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The news report appeared during the week. My friend and colleague, Ed Johnson, did a helluva job representing a homeless woman in her excessive force claims against members of the Gresham police force.  Here&#8217;s what seems to be a less-than-accurate account of what happened.
I rarely go out of my way to call into question news [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/05/portland-jury-finds-in-favor-of-homeless-woman-in-police-misconduct-case/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oregon Supreme Court Refuses to Allow Smokers&#8217; Claims for Medical Testing</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/05/oregon-supreme-court-refuses-to-allow-smokers-claims-for-medical-testing</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/05/oregon-supreme-court-refuses-to-allow-smokers-claims-for-medical-testing#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 01:50:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Oregon Supreme Court]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Oregon class action lawyer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Oregon injury lawyer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[civil justice system]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[consumer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[injury]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[medical monitoring]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[sugerman]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Add new tag]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[tobacco litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/?p=146</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, the Oregon Supreme Court held that Oregon smokers could not compel tobacco companies to fund medical tests that would help with early detection of smoking-related diseases. The case&#8211;Lowe v. Philip Morris&#8211;is important in a few ways.
First, by way of full disclosure, I was one of the lawyers representing Patricia Lowe, the smoker who sought [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/05/oregon-supreme-court-refuses-to-allow-smokers-claims-for-medical-testing/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Driver facing homicide charges for hitting cyclists to claim insanity</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/driver-facing-homicide-charges-for-hitting-cyclists-to-claim-insanity</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/driver-facing-homicide-charges-for-hitting-cyclists-to-claim-insanity#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:21:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon injury lawyer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Portland injury lawyer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[bicycle]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[motor vehicle]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[sugerman]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[cyclist]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[driver]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[homicide]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[SE Portland]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/?p=144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Most of us have no trouble seeing the divide between cars and bikes from both sides, as most of us are both cyclists and drivers. Sure, there are a few purists on both sides. And among the purists, there are even some nut cases.
I&#8217;ve used that label in the past freely, but now it looks [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/driver-facing-homicide-charges-for-hitting-cyclists-to-claim-insanity/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bank collusion case goes forward: the you-got-no-choice-on-arbitration case</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/bank-collusion-case-goes-forward-the-you-got-no-choice-on-arbitration-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/bank-collusion-case-goes-forward-the-you-got-no-choice-on-arbitration-case#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:43:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[MSNBC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Oregon class action lawyer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Public Justice]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[arbitration clause]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[mandatory arbitration]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[sugerman]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[red tapes chronicle]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/?p=142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kudos to MSNBC&#8217;s Red Tape Chronicles for reporting again on a quiet but important consumer issue.  As the good people at Public Justice explain, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a federal court&#8217;s dismissal of a claim brought against a who&#8217;s who of credit card companies, claiming that they colluded to require subscribers to take [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/bank-collusion-case-goes-forward-the-you-got-no-choice-on-arbitration-case/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Catching Up: Senate Kills Equal Pay Act Amendment</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/catching-up-senate-kills-equal-pay-act-amendment</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/catching-up-senate-kills-equal-pay-act-amendment#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:49:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon class action lawyer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[sugerman]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[work place]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[equal pay]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Senator McCain]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Senator Smith]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/?p=141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So this is last week&#8217;s news, but it&#8217;s important. As was widely reported, the Senate killed amendments to the Equal Pay Act. I&#8217;m only getting to it now because I was away last week.
Here&#8217;s some background on the Lebetter case, the horrible U.S. Supreme Court ruling that made this an issue. The gist is that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/catching-up-senate-kills-equal-pay-act-amendment/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>KINDER MORGAN FINALLY FINED</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/kinder-morgan-finally-fined</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/kinder-morgan-finally-fined#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:26:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[dumping]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[environment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[ocean]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[toxic]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/?p=140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This news article seems so appropriate for an Earth Day item. The U.S. Attorney in Oregon announced a major victory in a case against a tenant of our own local port. That&#8217;s right. The port, a public body, leases a portion of the Port of Portland to a company called Kinder Morgan.
Kinder Morgan imports and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/kinder-morgan-finally-fined/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More Bad on Arbitration&#8211;Employers Get Better Outcome</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/more-bad-on-arbitration-employers-get-better-outcome</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/more-bad-on-arbitration-employers-get-better-outcome#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:42:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon class action lawyer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Oregon injury lawyer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[arbitration clause]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[consumer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[mandatory arbitration]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[sugerman]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[employees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/?p=139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Somehow I&#8217;m not surprised. But this report summarizes a new study indicating that employers fare better than employees when an arbitration result is challenged in court. The author describes the employees&#8217; chances in arbitration reviews as &#8220;snowballing futility.&#8221; Nice phrase; horrible condition.
Congress is set to revisit the mandatory arbitration system abuses.  Those who benefit [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/more-bad-on-arbitration-employers-get-better-outcome/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ugh: Another coupon settlement in a class action</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/ugh-another-coupon-settlement-in-a-class-action</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/ugh-another-coupon-settlement-in-a-class-action#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:57:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon class action lawyer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[consumer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[motor vehicles]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[product safety]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[sugerman]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[consumer class action]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[coupon]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Ford explorer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/?p=138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the criticisms of class actions is that often they lead to little real benefit for consumers.  Often, that criticism isn&#8217;t very accurate because consumers who suffer small economic injuries aren&#8217;t going to see much benefit individually. But taking money from the wrongdoer penalizes them for misconduct and restores the money lost&#8211;even small [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/ugh-another-coupon-settlement-in-a-class-action/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
