<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" version="2.0"><channel><title>Supreme Court Briefing</title><link>http://www.supremecourtbriefing.com</link><description><![CDATA[Discussing and breaking down every decision of the United States Supreme Court, along with important historical decisions and occasionally some legal news.]]></description><atom:link href="https://www.spreaker.com/show/1578652/episodes/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><language>en</language><category>News</category><copyright>Copyright FOOLYBOO</copyright><lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2022 12:25:06 +0000</lastBuildDate><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:owner><itunes:name>FOOLYBOO</itunes:name><itunes:email>feeds@spreaker.com</itunes:email></itunes:owner><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/2daf68a62c61b344e48061531b751480.jpg"/><itunes:subtitle>Discussing and breaking down every decision of the United States Supreme Court, along with important historical decisions and occasionally some legal news.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Discussing and breaking down every decision of the United States Supreme Court, along with important historical decisions and occasionally some legal news.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:category text="News"/><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type><item><title>Ep 78 - Matal v. Tam</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-78-matal-v-tam</link><description><![CDATA[Does the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit viewpoint discrimination by the Patent and Trademark Office in accepting trademark registrations?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:59932cf7b8a79baf428ac0e4</guid><pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:28:01 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/12581652/matal_v_tam.mp3" length="9647995" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Does the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit viewpoint discrimination by the Patent and Trademark Office in accepting trademark registrations?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit viewpoint discrimination by the Patent and Trademark Office in accepting trademark registrations?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1206</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 77 - TC Heartland v. Kraft</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-77-tc-heartland-v-kraft</link><description><![CDATA[Venue for purposes of suing a corporate entity for patent infringement.  ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:593582a8b3db2bef363ff7a0</guid><pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2017 17:41:01 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/12538920/tc_heartland_v_kraft.mp3" length="8393499" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Venue for purposes of suing a corporate entity for patent infringement.  </itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Venue for purposes of suing a corporate entity for patent infringement.  ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1050</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 76 - Packingham v. North Carolina</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-76-packingham-v-north-carolina</link><description><![CDATA[Constitutionality of a law prohibiting sex offenders from accessing social media.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5935828d1e5b6c4a61df9de6</guid><pubDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:18:15 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/12423386/packingham_versus_north_carolina.mp3" length="10106517" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Constitutionality of a law prohibiting sex offenders from accessing social media.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Constitutionality of a law prohibiting sex offenders from accessing social media.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1264</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 75 - Trinity Lutheran v. Comer</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-75-trinity-lutheran-v-comer</link><description><![CDATA[Can a state government exclude religious institutions from participating in programs for generally available benefits?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5934c807d482e94c4e0d3912</guid><pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2017 03:40:29 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/12376204/trinity_lutheran_v_comer.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Can a state government exclude religious institutions from participating in programs for generally available benefits?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Can a state government exclude religious institutions from participating in programs for generally available benefits?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1155</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 74 - Henson v. Santander</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-74-henson-v-santander</link><description><![CDATA[What is a debt collector?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5934c8006a496389be3872fd</guid><pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:02:26 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/12323980/henson_v_santander.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>What is a debt collector?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is a debt collector?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>909</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 73 - County of Los Angeles v. Mendez</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-73-county-of-los-angeles-v-mendez</link><description><![CDATA[Consideration of the Ninth Circuit’s provocation rule in analyzing claims of excessive force.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5934c7fab8a79b65b0be3161</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:09:53 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/12096117/los_angeles_v_mendez.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Consideration of the Ninth Circuit’s provocation rule in analyzing claims of excessive force.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Consideration of the Ninth Circuit’s provocation rule in analyzing claims of excessive force.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1247</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 72 - Impression Products, Inc v. Lexmark International, Inc</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-72-impression-products-inc-v-lexmark-</link><description><![CDATA[Exhaustion of protection for patents for items sold in the United States and in foreign countries for purposes of establishing patent liability under the United States Patent Act.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5934c7f237c581fea84ce524</guid><pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2017 21:15:33 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/12041542/impression_products_v_lexmark.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Exhaustion of protection for patents for items sold in the United States and in foreign countries for purposes of establishing patent liability under the United States Patent Act.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Exhaustion of protection for patents for items sold in the United States and in foreign countries for purposes of establishing patent liability under the United States Patent Act.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1348</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 71 - Kindred Nursing Care, LLC v. Clark</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-71-kindred-nursing-care-llc-v-clark</link><description><![CDATA[Kindred Nursing Care, LLC v. ClarkApplication of the Federal Arbitration Act to a decision of the Kentucky Supreme court requiring a specific grant of authority in a power of attorney in order for an agent (i.e. the holder of the power of attorney) to bind the principal (i.e. person who signed the power of attorney) to an agreement that disputes will be settled by binding arbitration.  <br /><br />SUBSCRIBE ON ITUNES<br /><br /><br />LISTEN ON SPREAKER<br /><br /><br />LISTEN ON STITCHER<br /><br /><br />LISTEN ON GOOGLEPLAY<br /><br /><br />Supreme Court Briefing RSS]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:592e41de2994caf61e7817e7</guid><pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2017 20:58:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/12003535/kindred_nursing_care_llc_v_clark.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Kindred Nursing Care, LLC v. ClarkApplication of the Federal Arbitration Act to a decision of the Kentucky Supreme court requiring a specific grant of authority in a power of attorney in order for an agent (i.e. the holder of the power of attorney) to...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Kindred Nursing Care, LLC v. ClarkApplication of the Federal Arbitration Act to a decision of the Kentucky Supreme court requiring a specific grant of authority in a power of attorney in order for an agent (i.e. the holder of the power of attorney) to bind the principal (i.e. person who signed the power of attorney) to an agreement that disputes will be settled by binding arbitration.  <br /><br />SUBSCRIBE ON ITUNES<br /><br /><br />LISTEN ON SPREAKER<br /><br /><br />LISTEN ON STITCHER<br /><br /><br />LISTEN ON GOOGLEPLAY<br /><br /><br />Supreme Court Briefing RSS]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1091</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 70 - Howell v. Howell</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-70-howell-v-howell</link><description><![CDATA[Preemption of state law relating to division of marital assets involving a reduction of a military pension so that the former service member can receive disability pay.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:590810e2bf629aab76434449</guid><pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2017 17:10:20 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/11935442/howell_v_howell.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Preemption of state law relating to division of marital assets involving a reduction of a military pension so that the former service member can receive disability pay.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Preemption of state law relating to division of marital assets involving a reduction of a military pension so that the former service member can receive disability pay.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>996</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 69 - Venezuela v. Helmerich and Payne</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-69-venezuela-v-helmerich-and-payne</link><description><![CDATA[Standard for consideration of a motion to dismiss under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5900c93cbe65946a0d0ebf1c</guid><pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2017 21:55:55 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/11829113/venezuela_v.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Standard for consideration of a motion to dismiss under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Standard for consideration of a motion to dismiss under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>787</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,dismiss,judicial,justice,law,supremecourt</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 68 - NlRB v. SW General, Inc</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-68-nlrb-v-sw-general-inc</link><description><![CDATA[Limitations on the President’s authority to appoint acting officers during a vacancy of officers required to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate..]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5900c9246b8f5b7cd721104c</guid><pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2017 17:26:41 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/11783138/nlrb_v_sw_general_inc.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Limitations on the President’s authority to appoint acting officers during a vacancy of officers required to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate..</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Limitations on the President’s authority to appoint acting officers during a vacancy of officers required to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate..]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1635</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,decision,judge,law,politics,president,senate,supremecourt</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 67 - Endrew F v. Douglas County School District RE-1</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-67-endrew-f-v-douglas-county-school-d</link><description><![CDATA[Standard for courts to assess whether an individual education plan for a disabled student provides a free appropriate public education.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:58ffda28bf629aa22fd6558e</guid><pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:23:51 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/11724460/endrew_f_v_douglas_county_re_1.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Standard for courts to assess whether an individual education plan for a disabled student provides a free appropriate public education.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Standard for courts to assess whether an individual education plan for a disabled student provides a free appropriate public education.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1119</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,education,judge,judicial,law,politics,supremecourt</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 66 - McLane v. EEOC</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-66-mclane-v-eeoc</link><description><![CDATA[Standard of review for appeals courts reviewing a District Court’s decision whether to enforce an EEOC administrative subpoena.  ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:58c9a53ecd0f683932b3daca</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2017 19:43:36 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/11626840/mclane_v_eeoc.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Standard of review for appeals courts reviewing a District Court’s decision whether to enforce an EEOC administrative subpoena.  </itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Standard of review for appeals courts reviewing a District Court’s decision whether to enforce an EEOC administrative subpoena.  ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1168</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>appeals,court,district,law,lawyer,subpoena,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 65 - Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-65-expressions-hair-design-v-schneide</link><description><![CDATA[Does a commercial regulation prohibiting merchants from imposing a “surcharge” on credit card purchases, while allowing a discount for cash payments, implicate the First Amendment?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:58c9a4feb8a79b9a734d1009</guid><pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 18:38:24 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/11561870/expressions_hair_design_v_schneiderman.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Does a commercial regulation prohibiting merchants from imposing a “surcharge” on credit card purchases, while allowing a discount for cash payments, implicate the First Amendment?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does a commercial regulation prohibiting merchants from imposing a “surcharge” on credit card purchases, while allowing a discount for cash payments, implicate the First Amendment?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1418</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>cash,congree,court,creditcar,discount,law,lawyer,supremecourt,surcharge</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 64 - Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-64-star-athletica-v-varsity-brands</link><description><![CDATA[Standard for assessing copyright claims for artistic work when combined with a useful object.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:58c9a49e9f74567e8e0af3f6</guid><pubDate>Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:15:36 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/11492477/star_athletica_v_varsity_brands.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Standard for assessing copyright claims for artistic work when combined with a useful object.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Standard for assessing copyright claims for artistic work when combined with a useful object.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1334</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>claims,copyright,court,decision,law,lawyer,patent,politics,supremecourt</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 63 - Rippo v. Baker</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-63-rippo-v-baker</link><description><![CDATA[Standard under the U.S. Constitution Due Process Clause for circumstances when a party requests that a judge be removed from a trial due to possible bias.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:58c9a43b440243aa170ecc3a</guid><pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:45:42 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/11435030/rippo_v_baker.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Standard under the U.S. Constitution Due Process Clause for circumstances when a party requests that a judge be removed from a trial due to possible bias.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Standard under the U.S. Constitution Due Process Clause for circumstances when a party requests that a judge be removed from a trial due to possible bias.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1181</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>constitution,court,decision,judge,law,lawyer,politics,supremecourt</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 62 - Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Electors</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-62-bethune-hill-v-virginia-board-of-e</link><description><![CDATA[Challenge to electoral districts established by the Virginia legislature which created with the specific goal of having at least 55% African-American voters.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:58c9a3d26a49632c0cff302f</guid><pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 20:47:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/11396516/bethune_hill_v_virginia.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Challenge to electoral districts established by the Virginia legislature which created with the specific goal of having at least 55% African-American voters.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Challenge to electoral districts established by the Virginia legislature which created with the specific goal of having at least 55% African-American voters.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1889</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>african-american,black,court,elections,electors,gerrymandering,law,politics,virginia,vote</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 61 - Life Technologies v. Promega Corp</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-61-life-technologies-v-promega-corp</link><description><![CDATA[Application Section §271(f)(1) of the Patent Act, which creates liability for patent infringement when a “substantial portion” of the “components” of an invention protected by a US patent  are made in the US and shipped overseas for assembly.  Can one component be a “substantial portion” of the “components” of an invention.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:589146aa6b8f5b501dcfa08a</guid><pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2017 20:01:19 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/11227523/life_technologies_v_promega.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Application Section §271(f)(1) of the Patent Act, which creates liability for patent infringement when a “substantial portion” of the “components” of an invention protected by a US patent  are made in the US and shipped overseas for assembly.  Can one...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Application Section §271(f)(1) of the Patent Act, which creates liability for patent infringement when a “substantial portion” of the “components” of an invention protected by a US patent  are made in the US and shipped overseas for assembly.  Can one component be a “substantial portion” of the “components” of an invention.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1488</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>act,court,judicial,justice,law,lawsuit,lawyer,patent,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 60 - United States v. Nixon</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-60-united-states-v-nixon</link><description><![CDATA[The scope of the President’s executive privilege and how courts are to consider presidential claims of privilege.  ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:589145fe6b8f5b501dcf979e</guid><pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2017 02:59:23 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/10980270/united_states_v_nixon.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The scope of the President’s executive privilege and how courts are to consider presidential claims of privilege.  </itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The scope of the President’s executive privilege and how courts are to consider presidential claims of privilege.  ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1927</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,judicial,judicialbranch,nixon,president,presidential,supremecourt,watergate</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 59 - International Shoe v. Washington</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-59-international-shoe-v-washington</link><description><![CDATA[Watershed case discussing the jurisdiction of state courts over out of state corporations.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:589145a16b8f5b501dcf91f6</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:30:55 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/10870865/internatioal_shoe_v_washington.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Watershed case discussing the jurisdiction of state courts over out of state corporations.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Watershed case discussing the jurisdiction of state courts over out of state corporations.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1175</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,courts,decision,judicial,jurisdiction,justice,law,politics,state,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 58 - Lightfoot v. Cendant</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-58-lightfoot-v-cendant</link><description><![CDATA[Whether lawsuits involving the Federal National Mortgage Association, i.e. Fannie Mae, can be brought in federal court absent another basis of jurisdiction.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:589144c8f5e231f49077c2f1</guid><pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2017 05:54:27 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/10453554/lightfoot_v_cendant.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Whether lawsuits involving the Federal National Mortgage Association, i.e. Fannie Mae, can be brought in federal court absent another basis of jurisdiction.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Whether lawsuits involving the Federal National Mortgage Association, i.e. Fannie Mae, can be brought in federal court absent another basis of jurisdiction.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1015</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,decision,decisions,federal,jurisdiction,law,mortgage,politics,state,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 57 - State Farm v. Rigsby</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-57-state-farm-v-rigsby</link><description><![CDATA[Whether a violation of the “in camera” or sealed case requirement for bringing a claim as a relator under the False Claims Act mandates dismissal.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:587dc41229687f2d2fee93d9</guid><pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:26:18 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/10380678/state_farm_v_rigsby.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Whether a violation of the “in camera” or sealed case requirement for bringing a claim as a relator under the False Claims Act mandates dismissal.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Whether a violation of the “in camera” or sealed case requirement for bringing a claim as a relator under the False Claims Act mandates dismissal.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>905</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>act,camera,case,claims,court,false,in,law,lawyer,sue,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 56 - White v. Pauly</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-56-white-v-pauly</link><description><![CDATA[Consideration of qualified immunity for a police officer being sued for a civil rights violation when the officer encounters an ongoing scene where other officers are already involved in a confrontation with an armed party.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:587dbfbfff7c506acfb3a560</guid><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 07:11:15 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/10323708/white_v_pauly.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Consideration of qualified immunity for a police officer being sued for a civil rights violation when the officer encounters an ongoing scene where other officers are already involved in a confrontation with an armed party.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Consideration of qualified immunity for a police officer being sued for a civil rights violation when the officer encounters an ongoing scene where other officers are already involved in a confrontation with an armed party.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1118</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,guns,judge,jury,justice,law,politics,supreme,verdict</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 55 - Salman v. United States</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-55-salman-v-united-states</link><description><![CDATA[Interpretation of the Securities Exchange Act criminal provisions relating to insider trading to a “tippee” who receives information from a “tipper” who does not receive pecuniary gain as a result of the tip.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:584f261eff7c50e22e943055</guid><pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2017 01:37:51 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/10295142/salman_v_united_states.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Interpretation of the Securities Exchange Act criminal provisions relating to insider trading to a “tippee” who receives information from a “tipper” who does not receive pecuniary gain as a result of the tip.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Interpretation of the Securities Exchange Act criminal provisions relating to insider trading to a “tippee” who receives information from a “tipper” who does not receive pecuniary gain as a result of the tip.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1637</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,decision,law,lawyer,politics,security,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 54 - Shaw v. United States</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-54-shaw-v-united-states</link><description><![CDATA[Can a person commit bank fraud if they steal a customer’s account by giving the customer’s identification information to the bank and arranging a transfer of the customer’s funds to a financial account controlled by the defendant?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:584f23e2cd0f688bd1afa5af</guid><pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:25:17 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/10141062/shaw_v_united_states.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Can a person commit bank fraud if they steal a customer’s account by giving the customer’s identification information to the bank and arranging a transfer of the customer’s funds to a financial account controlled by the defendant?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Can a person commit bank fraud if they steal a customer’s account by giving the customer’s identification information to the bank and arranging a transfer of the customer’s funds to a financial account controlled by the defendant?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1055</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,defendant,fraud,judge,justice,law,politics,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 53 - Apple v. Samsung</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-53-apple-v-samsung</link><description><![CDATA[Calculation of total profits for design patent infringement.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5845dbeee4fcb5c4ed925091</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2016 22:11:20 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/10092983/samsung_v_apple.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Calculation of total profits for design patent infringement.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Calculation of total profits for design patent infringement.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1066</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>apple,court,design,judge,law,mac,patent,phone,samsung</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 52 - County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-52-county-of-allegheny-v-american-civ</link><description><![CDATA[Constitutionality of a nativity scene and menorah in separate displays in Pittsburgh, PA.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5845da83d2b857e0d8a85d6b</guid><pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2016 21:32:22 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/10044133/county_of_alleghany_v_aclu.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Constitutionality of a nativity scene and menorah in separate displays in Pittsburgh, PA.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Constitutionality of a nativity scene and menorah in separate displays in Pittsburgh, PA.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1435</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,decision,judge,judicial,justice,law,lawyer,nativity,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 51 - Lynch v. Donelly</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-51-lynch-v-donelly</link><description><![CDATA[Constitutionality of a government sponsored Christmas display featuring a nativity scene.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:583baa9959cc68566bf9ad15</guid><pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2016 17:26:20 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9989215/lynch_v_donnelly.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Constitutionality of a government sponsored Christmas display featuring a nativity scene.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Constitutionality of a government sponsored Christmas display featuring a nativity scene.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1178</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>constitution,court,decision,judge,law,lawyer,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 50 - Halo Electronics Inc v. Pulse Electronics Inc.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-50-halo-electronics-inc-v-pulse-elect</link><description><![CDATA[Standard and burden of proof for enhanced damages under the Patent Act.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:580e5e64be65949c07849161</guid><pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:12:56 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9908111/halo_electroics_v_pulse_electronics.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Standard and burden of proof for enhanced damages under the Patent Act.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Standard and burden of proof for enhanced damages under the Patent Act.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1031</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>burden,court,decisions,electronics,judge,justice,law,of,politics,proof,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 49 - United States v. Bryant</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-49-united-states-v-bryant</link><description><![CDATA[Use of convictions from tribal courts as predicate offenses for habitual domestic violence offender.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:580e5b8b440243cb5991b66c</guid><pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2016 19:24:26 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9820617/united_states_v_bryant.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Use of convictions from tribal courts as predicate offenses for habitual domestic violence offender.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Use of convictions from tribal courts as predicate offenses for habitual domestic violence offender.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>923</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>convictions,court,domestic,justice,law,lawyer,offender,supreme,trial,violence</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 48 - Green v. Brennan</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-48-green-v-brennan</link><description><![CDATA[Consideration of a statute of limitations for federal civil service employees claiming to be victims of discrimination or retaliation for bringing a claim of discrimination.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:580e5b5229687f9f7c259393</guid><pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2016 01:05:28 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9776384/green_v_brennan.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Consideration of a statute of limitations for federal civil service employees claiming to be victims of discrimination or retaliation for bringing a claim of discrimination.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Consideration of a statute of limitations for federal civil service employees claiming to be victims of discrimination or retaliation for bringing a claim of discrimination.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1039</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,decision,judge,jury,justice,law,lawyer,supreme,verdict</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 47 - Bosse v. Oklahoma</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-47-bosse-v-oklahoma</link><description><![CDATA[Per Curiam opinion discussing limitations on admissibility of victim impact evidence in capital sentencing hearings.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:580e5b4429687f9f7c259269</guid><pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2016 19:17:44 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9713063/bosse_v_oklahoma.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Per Curiam opinion discussing limitations on admissibility of victim impact evidence in capital sentencing hearings.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Per Curiam opinion discussing limitations on admissibility of victim impact evidence in capital sentencing hearings.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>866</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,curiam,decision,evidence,judge,justice,law,lawyer,oklahoma,per,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 46 - Universal Health Services Inc v. United States</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-46-universal-health-services-inc-v-un</link><description><![CDATA[Standard for assessing implied false claim under the false claims act.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:57fc29a82994cac4814dd966</guid><pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:13:58 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9615444/universal_health_services_inc_v_united_states_et_al_1.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Standard for assessing implied false claim under the false claims act.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Standard for assessing implied false claim under the false claims act.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1101</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>claim,court,judge,jury,law,lawyer,verdict</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 45 - Encino Motorcars LLC v Navaro</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-45-encino-motorcars-llc-v-navaro</link><description><![CDATA[Administrative law.  Whether interpretative regulations issued by federal agencies are entitled to deference if the agency does not state sufficient grounds to justify the interpretation.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:57f2f1f61b631bd901f69551</guid><pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:35:36 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9558628/encino_motorcars_llc_v_navaro.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Administrative law.  Whether interpretative regulations issued by federal agencies are entitled to deference if the agency does not state sufficient grounds to justify the interpretation.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Administrative law.  Whether interpretative regulations issued by federal agencies are entitled to deference if the agency does not state sufficient grounds to justify the interpretation.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>978</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,judge,judicial,law,lawyer,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 44 - Kirtsaeng v. Wiley</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-44-kirtsaeng-v-wiley</link><description><![CDATA[Standard for awarding attorneys fees to the prevailing party in copyright litigation in federal court.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:57ed64209de4bb2fd69bb60b</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:41:21 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9526545/kirtsaeng_v_wiley.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Standard for awarding attorneys fees to the prevailing party in copyright litigation in federal court.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Standard for awarding attorneys fees to the prevailing party in copyright litigation in federal court.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1016</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney,court,federal,law,litigation,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 43 - Mathis v United States.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-43-mathis-v-united-states</link><description><![CDATA[Application of sentencing provision in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm with a prior conviction under Iowa’s burglary statute.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:57e164b8d1758e4444a7fd69</guid><pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:06:33 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9449244/mathis_v_united_states.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Application of sentencing provision in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm with a prior conviction under Iowa’s burglary statute.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Application of sentencing provision in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm with a prior conviction under Iowa’s burglary statute.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>969</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>burglary,court,decision,judge,justice,law,sentencing,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 42 - Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-42-fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-au</link><description><![CDATA[Constitutionality of the admissions process of the University of Texas, which considers the racial background of an applicant as a factor in admissions.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:57d9bb05e4fcb549d988bfdf</guid><pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2016 21:21:57 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9408762/fisher_v_ut.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Constitutionality of the admissions process of the University of Texas, which considers the racial background of an applicant as a factor in admissions.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Constitutionality of the admissions process of the University of Texas, which considers the racial background of an applicant as a factor in admissions.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1322</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>admissions,constitution,court,judge,law,podcast,racial,supreme,university</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 41 - Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. LEE.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-41-cuozzo-speed-technologies-llc-v-le</link><description><![CDATA[Judicial review of inter partes review of the validity of a patent.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:57d07c31bebafbc1211fd066</guid><pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:54:01 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9356801/podcast.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Judicial review of inter partes review of the validity of a patent.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Judicial review of inter partes review of the validity of a patent.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>884</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 40 - Whole Woman's Health et al.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-40-whole-womans-health-et-al</link><description><![CDATA[Opinion by Justice Breyer, 5-3 opinion.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:57c464414402435fb5345fc0</guid><pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:44:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9305299/whole_womans_health_2.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Opinion by Justice Breyer, 5-3 opinion.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Opinion by Justice Breyer, 5-3 opinion.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1049</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>abortion,court,law,medication,supreme,texas,women</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 39 - McDonnell v. United States</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-39-mcdonnell-v-united-states</link><description><![CDATA[Meaning of the term “official act” for purposes of a Hobbs Act prosecution, and whether things such having meetings, setting up phone calls, and hosting events qualifies.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:57bc7c45be659453c73aab21</guid><pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:26:15 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9247268/scb_ep_38_mixdown.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Meaning of the term “official act” for purposes of a Hobbs Act prosecution, and whether things such having meetings, setting up phone calls, and hosting events qualifies.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Meaning of the term “official act” for purposes of a Hobbs Act prosecution, and whether things such having meetings, setting up phone calls, and hosting events qualifies.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1248</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>a,act,act”,and,for,hobbs,meaning,of,“official,prosecution,purposes,such,term,the,things,whether</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/de1d7b15521748b3ad63727eaa22a50d.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 38 - Nichols v. United States</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-38-nichols-v-united-states</link><description><![CDATA[Applicability of the federal sex offender act (SORNA) to offenders who move from a U.S. jurisdiction]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:57b1e808579fb347ba7c6edb</guid><pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2016 01:37:49 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9198774/nichols_v_united_states.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Applicability of the federal sex offender act (SORNA) to offenders who move from a U.S. jurisdiction</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Applicability of the federal sex offender act (SORNA) to offenders who move from a U.S. jurisdiction]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>570</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>federal,jurisdiction,law,nichols,offender,sex,sorna,us</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 37 - Voisine v. United States.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-37-voisine-v-united-states</link><description><![CDATA[Application of federal firearms act to individuals convicted of state law misdemeanor domestic violence offenses that contain a culpable mental state of “recklessly.”]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5783e007e58c624d337bc6f1</guid><pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:25:16 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9019115/voisine_v_united_states.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Application of federal firearms act to individuals convicted of state law misdemeanor domestic violence offenses that contain a culpable mental state of “recklessly.”</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Application of federal firearms act to individuals convicted of state law misdemeanor domestic violence offenses that contain a culpable mental state of “recklessly.”]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>803</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>firearms,law,prohibition,state,violence</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 36 - RJR Nabisco v. European Community</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-36-rjr-nabisco-v-european-community</link><description><![CDATA[Application of the RICO law to activities occurring outside of the United States, and determining whether civil plaintiffs can sue for RICO injuries occurring outside the United States.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5783df12414fb5a60b04f118</guid><pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:56:31 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8962416/rjr_nabisco_v_european_community.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Application of the RICO law to activities occurring outside of the United States, and determining whether civil plaintiffs can sue for RICO injuries occurring outside the United States.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Application of the RICO law to activities occurring outside of the United States, and determining whether civil plaintiffs can sue for RICO injuries occurring outside the United States.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1168</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>civil,congress,court,government,injuries,judge,law,lawsuit,plaintiffs,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 35 - Utah v. Strieff</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-35-utah-v-strieff</link><description><![CDATA[Application of the exclusionary rule for a violation of the 4th Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures when the police detain someone based on less than reasonable suspicion, and later find a valid arrest warrant.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5772af96d2b85707e1db6da2</guid><pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:19:29 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8873615/utah_v_strieff.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Application of the exclusionary rule for a violation of the 4th Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures when the police detain someone based on less than reasonable suspicion, and later find a valid arrest warrant.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Application of the exclusionary rule for a violation of the 4th Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures when the police detain someone based on less than reasonable suspicion, and later find a valid arrest warrant.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1434</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>4th,amendment,court,decision,law,prohibition,supreme,utah,warrant</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 34 - Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax Free Trust</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-34-commonwealth-of-puerto-rico-v-fran</link><description><![CDATA[To follow Rich on twitter: @richorman To follow Rich on instragram: @blackclawdog]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:57432e82c6fc08db990014cb</guid><pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:45:32 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8822903/commonwealth_versus_franklin.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>To follow Rich on twitter: @richorman To follow Rich on instragram: @blackclawdog</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[To follow Rich on twitter: @richorman To follow Rich on instragram: @blackclawdog]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1170</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bankruptcy,commonwealth,court,law,lawyer,municipal,puerto,rico,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 33 - Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-33-puerto-rico-v-sanchez-valle</link><description><![CDATA[Does the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico count as a “separate sovereign” for purposes of multiple prosecutions under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:57432e15c6fc08db99001078</guid><pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:22:48 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8771102/scb_puerto_rico_mixdown.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Does the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico count as a “separate sovereign” for purposes of multiple prosecutions under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico count as a “separate sovereign” for purposes of multiple prosecutions under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>891</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>commonwealth,constitution,court,double,jeopardy,puerto,rico,sovereign,state,supere</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 32 - United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawks Co., Inc.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-32-united-states-army-corps-of-engine</link><description><![CDATA[Finality of a jurisdictional determination regarding whether property is a wetland under the Clean Water Act.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:57432da7c6fc08db99000c9f</guid><pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 16:49:42 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8713190/corps_of_engineers_v_hawkes_co.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Finality of a jurisdictional determination regarding whether property is a wetland under the Clean Water Act.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Finality of a jurisdictional determination regarding whether property is a wetland under the Clean Water Act.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>793</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>act,clean,court,engineers,jurisdictional,law,lawyer,supreme,water,wetlands</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 31 - Sturgeon v. Frost</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-31-sturgeon-v-frost</link><description><![CDATA[Kind of, sort of, about hovercraft regulations on a portion of the Nation River in Alaska.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:57432d1fc6fc08db99fffff2</guid><pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2016 16:48:45 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8654783/sturgeon_v_frost.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Kind of, sort of, about hovercraft regulations on a portion of the Nation River in Alaska.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Kind of, sort of, about hovercraft regulations on a portion of the Nation River in Alaska.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1081</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>alaska,court,decision,federal,frost,government,grant,hovercraft,land,state,sturgeon,supreme,v</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 30 - Nebraska v. Parker</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-30-nebraska-v-parker</link><description><![CDATA[Answer:  Yes, it does.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5730f8e47da24f07c2cc35e3</guid><pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2016 19:27:13 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8588003/nebraska_versus_parker.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Answer:  Yes, it does.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Answer:  Yes, it does.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>868</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>act,congress,court,decision,indian,judge,law,lawyer,nebraska,reservation,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 29 - Heffernan v. Patterson</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-29-heffernan-v-patterson</link><description><![CDATA[Can a person who did not exercise a constitutionally protected right sue government officials who retaliate against the person when the government officials mistakenly think that the person actually did exercise a constitutionally protected right?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5730f74aab48dea767deb4b8</guid><pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2016 04:29:42 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8539505/heffernan_versus_patterson.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Can a person who did not exercise a constitutionally protected right sue government officials who retaliate against the person when the government officials mistakenly think that the person actually did exercise a constitutionally protected right?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Can a person who did not exercise a constitutionally protected right sue government officials who retaliate against the person when the government officials mistakenly think that the person actually did exercise a constitutionally protected right?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>779</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>constitution,court,decision,government,judge,justice,law,lawyer,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 28 - Ocasio v. United States</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-28-ocasio-v-united-states</link><description><![CDATA[Deciding whether a person can commit the crime of conspiracy to violate the Hobbs Act  for extortion when the co-conspirators are the persons illegally providing the bribes to the government official.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5730f5ed62cd9460fe933234</guid><pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2016 22:11:15 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8464461/scb_ocasio_v_us_mixdown.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Deciding whether a person can commit the crime of conspiracy to violate the Hobbs Act  for extortion when the co-conspirators are the persons illegally providing the bribes to the government official.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Deciding whether a person can commit the crime of conspiracy to violate the Hobbs Act  for extortion when the co-conspirators are the persons illegally providing the bribes to the government official.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1101</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>act,court,crime,education,hobbs,judge,jury,law,lawyer,supreme,verdict</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 27 - V.L. v. E.L.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-27-v-l-v-e-l</link><description><![CDATA[Application of the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution when one state considers whether the court of another state acted in accordance with the other state’s laws, and whether a jurisdictional question is really jurisdictional.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:571ff3f8b09f95daf286a9d0</guid><pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2016 00:28:36 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8357648/vl_versus_el.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Application of the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution when one state considers whether the court of another state acted in accordance with the other state’s laws, and whether a jurisdictional question is really jurisdictional.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Application of the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution when one state considers whether the court of another state acted in accordance with the other state’s laws, and whether a jurisdictional question is really jurisdictional.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>697</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,jurisdictional,law,lawyer,podcast,state,supremecourt</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 26 - Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual:</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-26-gobeille-v-liberty-mutual</link><description><![CDATA[Does ERISA preempt Vermont’s health care reporting requirements?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:57042da7746fb9a1d8273d9a</guid><pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:15:33 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8305781/gobeille_versus_liberty_mutual.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Does ERISA preempt Vermont’s health care reporting requirements?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does ERISA preempt Vermont’s health care reporting requirements?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>477</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>education,health,healthcare,law,podcast,supremecourt,vermont</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 25 - Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-25-americold-realty-trust-v-conagra-f</link><description><![CDATA[Determination of diversity of citizenship for a Maryland real estate investment trust.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:570428852b8ddefddbcd8014</guid><pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2016 22:28:05 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8188049/americold_realty_trust_v_conagra_foods.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Determination of diversity of citizenship for a Maryland real estate investment trust.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Determination of diversity of citizenship for a Maryland real estate investment trust.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>651</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,estate,law,podcast,real,supreme,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 24 - Two Per Curiams</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-24-two-per-curiams</link><description><![CDATA[James v. Boise.  Supremacy of standard for attorneys fees for defendants in civil rights litigation.  Does the U.S. Supreme Court rule apply, or can states set their own rules for lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983?  Answer:  U.S. Supreme Court precedent applies.  Amgen, Inc. v. Harris.   Standards for suing fiduciaries employer stock purchase retirement plans.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:56eae0bff699bb6cbeb15274</guid><pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:45:11 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8131484/two_pre_curiams.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>James v. Boise.  Supremacy of standard for attorneys fees for defendants in civil rights litigation.  Does the U.S. Supreme Court rule apply, or can states set their own rules for lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983?  Answer:  U.S. Supreme Court...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[James v. Boise.  Supremacy of standard for attorneys fees for defendants in civil rights litigation.  Does the U.S. Supreme Court rule apply, or can states set their own rules for lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983?  Answer:  U.S. Supreme Court precedent applies.  Amgen, Inc. v. Harris.   Standards for suing fiduciaries employer stock purchase retirement plans.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>754</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney,court,curiams,fiduciaries,law,litigation,per,podcast,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 23 - Not Two Blockbusters</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-23-not-two-blockbusters</link><description><![CDATA[The first decision examines the elements of equitable tolling for a federal statute of limitations. The second decision examines the authority of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to demand reduction schemes that impact interstate wholesale power rates.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:56eada42b654f9c7a02ce096</guid><pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:26:14 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8074934/not_two_blockbusters.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The first decision examines the elements of equitable tolling for a federal statute of limitations. The second decision examines the authority of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to demand reduction schemes that impact interstate wholesale power...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The first decision examines the elements of equitable tolling for a federal statute of limitations. The second decision examines the authority of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to demand reduction schemes that impact interstate wholesale power rates.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1484</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 22 - Masacchio v. United States</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-22-masacchio-v-united-states</link><description><![CDATA[Is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case assessed based on the elements of the charges in the indictment, or on additional elements added in an erroneous jury instruction that benefited the defendant? Can a statute of limitations defense in a federal criminal case be raised for the first time on appeal?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:56eada00859fd081d7828868</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:52:03 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/8027800/masacchio_v_united_states.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case assessed based on the elements of the charges in the indictment, or on additional elements added in an erroneous jury instruction that benefited the defendant? Can a statute of...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case assessed based on the elements of the charges in the indictment, or on additional elements added in an erroneous jury instruction that benefited the defendant? Can a statute of limitations defense in a federal criminal case be raised for the first time on appeal?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>762</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 21 - Lockhart v. United States</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-21-lockhart-v-united-states</link><description><![CDATA[Does the language “involving a minor or ward” apply to all three possible predicate offenses, i.e. to “aggravated sexual abuse” and “sexual abuse” in addition to “abuse sexual conduct” or does it only apply to “abusive sexual conduct”?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:56dc961d2b8dde60535d1ac8</guid><pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2016 01:48:45 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7957205/lockhart_v_united_states.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Does the language “involving a minor or ward” apply to all three possible predicate offenses, i.e. to “aggravated sexual abuse” and “sexual abuse” in addition to “abuse sexual conduct” or does it only apply to “abusive sexual conduct”?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does the language “involving a minor or ward” apply to all three possible predicate offenses, i.e. to “aggravated sexual abuse” and “sexual abuse” in addition to “abuse sexual conduct” or does it only apply to “abusive sexual conduct”?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>996</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 20 - Montgomery v. Louisiana.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-20-montgomery-v-louisiana</link><description><![CDATA[Does the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, holding that juvenile murderers prosecuted as adults cannot be automatically sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, apply retroactively?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5681cb400ab377cb5624d187</guid><pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2016 23:04:57 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7905047/montgomery_v_lousiana.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Does the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, holding that juvenile murderers prosecuted as adults cannot be automatically sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, apply retroactively?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, holding that juvenile murderers prosecuted as adults cannot be automatically sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, apply retroactively?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1058</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,law,parole,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 19 - Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-19-campbell-ewald-v-gomez</link><description><![CDATA[Answer:  No.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5681cae1b204d56356695ce4</guid><pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:45:23 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7855267/campbell_ewald_v_gomez.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Answer:  No.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Answer:  No.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1256</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>action,automated,class,court,law,messages,supreme,text</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 18 - Montanile v. Board of Trustees.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-18-montanile-v-board-of-trustees</link><description><![CDATA[Decision announced January 20, 2016.  8-1 decision by justice Clarence Thomas.  Held--the language of ERISA limits relief to the type of “equitable relief” that existed in 1938.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5681ca6db204d56356695871</guid><pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:42:47 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7802619/montainile_v_board_of_trustees.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Decision announced January 20, 2016.  8-1 decision by justice Clarence Thomas.  Held--the language of ERISA limits relief to the type of “equitable relief” that existed in 1938.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Decision announced January 20, 2016.  8-1 decision by justice Clarence Thomas.  Held--the language of ERISA limits relief to the type of “equitable relief” that existed in 1938.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1070</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,courts,equitable,equity,erisa,law,lean,settlement,suit,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 17 - Hurst v. Florida</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-17-hurst-v-florida</link><description><![CDATA[Florida’s death penalty procedure, where the jury makes a recommendation and the judge then determines whether the death penalty should be imposed, is unconstitutional.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5681c9d9cbced618ba5cecb4</guid><pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:25:34 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7649583/hurst_v_florida.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Florida’s death penalty procedure, where the jury makes a recommendation and the judge then determines whether the death penalty should be imposed, is unconstitutional.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Florida’s death penalty procedure, where the jury makes a recommendation and the judge then determines whether the death penalty should be imposed, is unconstitutional.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>423</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 16 - Bruce v. Samuels</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-16-bruce-v-samuels</link><description><![CDATA[Issue Presented:  Whether an indigent prisoner litigant must pay multiple monthly payments, one per each lawsuit, for lawsuits filed in federal court.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5681c96269492e9cac501e8d</guid><pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:00:13 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7597057/bruce_v_samuels.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Issue Presented:  Whether an indigent prisoner litigant must pay multiple monthly payments, one per each lawsuit, for lawsuits filed in federal court.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Issue Presented:  Whether an indigent prisoner litigant must pay multiple monthly payments, one per each lawsuit, for lawsuits filed in federal court.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>648</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 15 - Griswold v. Connecticut</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-15-griswold-v-connecticut</link><description><![CDATA[Opinion by Justice William O. Douglas.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5681c600841ababe41571028</guid><pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:27:07 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7458236/episode_15.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Opinion by Justice William O. Douglas.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Opinion by Justice William O. Douglas.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>698</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ep 14 - Not A Christmas Special (Two New Opinions)</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-14-not-a-christmas-special-two-new-op</link><description><![CDATA[White v. Wheeler:  Standard of review regarding dismissal of a juror in a death penalty prosecution under the AEDPA. DirectTV, Inc. v. Imburgia:  Does the Federal Arbitration Act require California to recognize a waiver of consolidated (or class) arbitration, when California law, since overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court would void such clauses, and when the contract said that the clause would be voided under the law of the customer’s state, if applicable.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:567778361c1210f594dd62ba</guid><pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:06:29 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7419961/episode_14.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>White v. Wheeler:  Standard of review regarding dismissal of a juror in a death penalty prosecution under the AEDPA. DirectTV, Inc. v. Imburgia:  Does the Federal Arbitration Act require California to recognize a waiver of consolidated (or class)...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[White v. Wheeler:  Standard of review regarding dismissal of a juror in a death penalty prosecution under the AEDPA. DirectTV, Inc. v. Imburgia:  Does the Federal Arbitration Act require California to recognize a waiver of consolidated (or class) arbitration, when California law, since overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court would void such clauses, and when the contract said that the clause would be voided under the law of the customer’s state, if applicable.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1375</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>00:22:55</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 13 - Shapiro v. McManus</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-13-shapiro-v-mcmanus</link><description><![CDATA[Answer?  Only if the claims are completely frivolous.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5670c25ddc5cb4a942ff3553</guid><pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:01:29 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7375854/episode_13.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Answer?  Only if the claims are completely frivolous.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Answer?  Only if the claims are completely frivolous.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>676</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,district,federal,judge</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 12 - OBB PERSONENVERKEHR AG v. SACHS</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-12-obb-personenverkehr-ag-v-sachs</link><description><![CDATA[Unanimous opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5667334dbfe87358fa27b081</guid><pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2015 20:16:10 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7330118/episode_12.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Unanimous opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Unanimous opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>642</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>accident,eurail,law,suit</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 11 - Brown v. Board of Education</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-11-brown-v-board-of-education</link><description><![CDATA[Segregation on the basis of race violates the 14th Amendment.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5654c0a4e4b0a42157cca962</guid><pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2015 20:24:16 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7265706/episode_11.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Segregation on the basis of race violates the 14th Amendment.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Segregation on the basis of race violates the 14th Amendment.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>654</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>14th,amendment,court,law,race,segregation,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 10 - Mullenix v. Luna</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-10-mullenix-v-luna</link><description><![CDATA[The doctrine of qualified immunity provided a defense to the civil lawsuit.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5649222de4b0734a6c44f656</guid><pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:43:37 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7265703/episode_10.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The doctrine of qualified immunity provided a defense to the civil lawsuit.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The doctrine of qualified immunity provided a defense to the civil lawsuit.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>731</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>chase,immunity,law,lawsuit,officer,police,shot,victim</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 9 - District of Columbia v. Heller</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-9-district-of-columbia-v-heller</link><description><![CDATA[Or does it only apply to members of a state militia?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:56411a38e4b05d0d1718dc07</guid><pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:28:12 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7265712/scbep9.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Or does it only apply to members of a state militia?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Or does it only apply to members of a state militia?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1090</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>amendment,arms,constitution,guns,militia,second</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 8 - United States v. Morrison.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-8-united-states-v-morrison</link><description><![CDATA[Did Congress have constitutional authority to create a cause of action for gender-motivated violence?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:563795aae4b09834bf1dc9e7</guid><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2015 16:14:50 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7265705/episode_8.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Did Congress have constitutional authority to create a cause of action for gender-motivated violence?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Did Congress have constitutional authority to create a cause of action for gender-motivated violence?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1042</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>congress,constitution,gender,violence</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 7 - The Japanese Internment Cases</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-7-the-japanese-internment-cases</link><description><![CDATA[The supreme court was confronted four times with this grave injustice. Episode seven addresses the Japanese Internment Cases.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:562fcfd4e4b0aaa589cf0b9e</guid><pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:56:10 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7265704/episode_7_the_japanese_internment_cases.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The supreme court was confronted four times with this grave injustice. Episode seven addresses the Japanese Internment Cases.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The supreme court was confronted four times with this grave injustice. Episode seven addresses the Japanese Internment Cases.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2189</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>cases,cicero,court,internment,japan,japanese,relocation,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 6 - Maryland v. Kulbicki.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-6-maryland-v-kulbicki</link><description><![CDATA[Was trial counsel constitutionally ineffective for failing to review a 1991 scientific paper on comparative lead bullet analysis?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5612bb92e4b00b12a242bdc9</guid><pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2015 21:12:35 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7265707/first_opinion_of_oct_2015_term_pre_levelaator.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Was trial counsel constitutionally ineffective for failing to review a 1991 scientific paper on comparative lead bullet analysis?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Was trial counsel constitutionally ineffective for failing to review a 1991 scientific paper on comparative lead bullet analysis?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1383</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>constitution,court,criminal,curiam,defendant,kulbicki,law,opinion,per,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c4981deff0fefa6f20caeae8c64ddebd.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 5 - Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commision</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-5-arizona-state-legislature-v-arizona</link><description><![CDATA[Can the people of a state, through amendment of the state constitution, give power to establish legislative districts to an independent commission and not the state legislature?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:5612a8a3e4b0147725b41d1e</guid><pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2015 18:52:51 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7265702/episode_five.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Can the people of a state, through amendment of the state constitution, give power to establish legislative districts to an independent commission and not the state legislature?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Can the people of a state, through amendment of the state constitution, give power to establish legislative districts to an independent commission and not the state legislature?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1036</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>arizona,constitution,election,governor,legislature,veto</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/2daf68a62c61b344e48061531b751480.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 4 - Roe v. Wade (with Special guest Dr. Rob Orman)</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-4-roe-v-wade-with-special-guest-dr-ro</link><description><![CDATA[Historical decision establishing a constitutional right to privacy protection for abortions prior to viability of the fetus.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:56087570e4b0e8ed89e167ca</guid><pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:27:17 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7265709/episode_four_roe_v_wade_output_2.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Historical decision establishing a constitutional right to privacy protection for abortions prior to viability of the fetus.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Historical decision establishing a constitutional right to privacy protection for abortions prior to viability of the fetus.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2926</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>abortion,decisions,emrap,law,orman,parenthood,planned,pro-choice,pro-life,rob,roe,v.,wade</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/2daf68a62c61b344e48061531b751480.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 3 - Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-3-integrity-staffing-solutions-inc-v-</link><description><![CDATA[Does an an employer have to pay employees for time spent waiting to go through security screening after the work shift ended?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:560182d1e4b0b133a4b4f3dd</guid><pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:46:44 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7265708/supreme_court_briefing_episode_3.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Does an an employer have to pay employees for time spent waiting to go through security screening after the work shift ended?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does an an employer have to pay employees for time spent waiting to go through security screening after the work shift ended?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1109</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>busk,case,employee,employer,integrity,law,screening,security,shift,solutions,staffing,work</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/2daf68a62c61b344e48061531b751480.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 2 - Marbury v. Madison (1803).</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-2-marbury-v-madison-1803</link><description><![CDATA[Does the judiciary of the United States have constitutional authority to find an act of Congress void for violation of the United States Constitution?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:55f2c7dce4b07b1c9b7536ad</guid><pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:46:30 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7265711/episode_two.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Does the judiciary of the United States have constitutional authority to find an act of Congress void for violation of the United States Constitution?</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does the judiciary of the United States have constitutional authority to find an act of Congress void for violation of the United States Constitution?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1253</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>branch,constitution,court,executive,judiciary,legislative,president,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/2daf68a62c61b344e48061531b751480.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EP 1 - Lopez v. Smith</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/user/foolyboo/ep-1-lopez-v-smith</link><description><![CDATA[Discussing and breaking down every decision of the United States Supreme Court, along with important historical decisions and occasionally some legal news.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">55ed89c9e4b02a8ac1c36eef:55f1b134e4b0e83b4ef36441:55f1b145e4b0593dce201250</guid><pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:08:10 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/7265710/episode_one_redux_output.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>FOOLYBOO</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Discussing and breaking down every decision of the United States Supreme Court, along with important historical decisions and occasionally some legal news.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Discussing and breaking down every decision of the United States Supreme Court, along with important historical decisions and occasionally some legal news.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1336</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,law,letigious,orman,politics,rich,ruling,supreme</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/2daf68a62c61b344e48061531b751480.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item></channel></rss>
