<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Case of the Day: Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co. v. J&#038;P Transport	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/07/25/case-of-the-day-progressive-southeastern-insurance-co-v-jp-transport/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/07/25/case-of-the-day-progressive-southeastern-insurance-co-v-jp-transport/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 17:16:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: TracFone Wireless v. Doe &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/07/25/case-of-the-day-progressive-southeastern-insurance-co-v-jp-transport/#comment-24102</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: TracFone Wireless v. Doe &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 02:53:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1661#comment-24102</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] holding is also correct, or at least I think it is correct from a US perspective, but see the discussion I had with Antonin Pribetic, a Canadian lawyer, on the issue of service by mail in [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] holding is also correct, or at least I think it is correct from a US perspective, but see the discussion I had with Antonin Pribetic, a Canadian lawyer, on the issue of service by mail in [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Bitton &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/07/25/case-of-the-day-progressive-southeastern-insurance-co-v-jp-transport/#comment-24095</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Bitton &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 01:59:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1661#comment-24095</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] for service by mail sent by the clerk. This decision seems correct to me as to Canada (but see the discussion here for another view by a Canadian lawyer), and though I disclaim any knowledge of Vietnamese law, the [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] for service by mail sent by the clerk. This decision seems correct to me as to Canada (but see the discussion here for another view by a Canadian lawyer), and though I disclaim any knowledge of Vietnamese law, the [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: New York State Thruway Authority v. Fenech &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/07/25/case-of-the-day-progressive-southeastern-insurance-co-v-jp-transport/#comment-23768</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: New York State Thruway Authority v. Fenech &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Dec 2024 19:14:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1661#comment-23768</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] deal with the objection that esteemed fellow blogger and Canadian lawyer Antonin Pribetic made in our dialogue about the permissibility of service by mail in Canada under the Convention (Antonin&#8217;s point [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] deal with the objection that esteemed fellow blogger and Canadian lawyer Antonin Pribetic made in our dialogue about the permissibility of service by mail in Canada under the Convention (Antonin&#8217;s point [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Dierig v. Lees Leisure Industries &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/07/25/case-of-the-day-progressive-southeastern-insurance-co-v-jp-transport/#comment-23767</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Dierig v. Lees Leisure Industries &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Dec 2024 19:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1661#comment-23767</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] by the clerk rather than the plaintiff. I have previously written, in the comments to the post on Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co. v. J&#038;P Transport, that I think the first view is right, but I could be wrong about [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] by the clerk rather than the plaintiff. I have previously written, in the comments to the post on Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co. v. J&#038;P Transport, that I think the first view is right, but I could be wrong about [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: In re LLS America &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/07/25/case-of-the-day-progressive-southeastern-insurance-co-v-jp-transport/#comment-23326</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: In re LLS America &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2024 14:20:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1661#comment-23326</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] fellow blogger Antonin Pribetic and I have discussed this issue on several occasions, for example, in the comments to the post on Progressive Southeastern Insurance v. J&#038;P Transport and in the comments to the post on Schiff v. Hurwitz. I refer readers to Antonin&#8217;s comments [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] fellow blogger Antonin Pribetic and I have discussed this issue on several occasions, for example, in the comments to the post on Progressive Southeastern Insurance v. J&#038;P Transport and in the comments to the post on Schiff v. Hurwitz. I refer readers to Antonin&#8217;s comments [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Shoham v. Islamic Republic of Iran &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/07/25/case-of-the-day-progressive-southeastern-insurance-co-v-jp-transport/#comment-23232</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Shoham v. Islamic Republic of Iran &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Dec 2024 04:08:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1661#comment-23232</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] requires that such service be by registered mail, return receipt requested, and I refer readers to one of my many discussions with Antonin Pribeti&#038;cacute; on the issue of service by mail in Canada. The judge held, correctly, [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] requires that such service be by registered mail, return receipt requested, and I refer readers to one of my many discussions with Antonin Pribeti&amp;cacute; on the issue of service by mail in Canada. The judge held, correctly, [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Menon v. Water Splash &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/07/25/case-of-the-day-progressive-southeastern-insurance-co-v-jp-transport/#comment-22761</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Menon v. Water Splash &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Nov 2024 02:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1661#comment-22761</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] denied her motion, and she appealed.  Canada is a party to the Hague Service Convention, and since Canada has not objected to service by postal channels under Article 10(a), the Convention permits service by mail in Canada, and such service is valid as [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] denied her motion, and she appealed.  Canada is a party to the Hague Service Convention, and since Canada has not objected to service by postal channels under Article 10(a), the Convention permits service by mail in Canada, and such service is valid as [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Bank of Mongolia v. Taskin &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/07/25/case-of-the-day-progressive-southeastern-insurance-co-v-jp-transport/#comment-221</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Bank of Mongolia v. Taskin &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:05:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1661#comment-221</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] is my view that these decisions were correct as a matter of US law. Antonin and I had a dialogue on this very point back in July. In my view, because Canada has not formally objected to service by mail under Article [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] is my view that these decisions were correct as a matter of US law. Antonin and I had a dialogue on this very point back in July. In my view, because Canada has not formally objected to service by mail under Article [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: In re LLS America &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/07/25/case-of-the-day-progressive-southeastern-insurance-co-v-jp-transport/#comment-220</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: In re LLS America &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:01:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1661#comment-220</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] fellow blogger Antonin Pribetic and I have discussed this issue on several occasions, for example, in the comments to the post on Progressive Southeastern Insurance v. J&#038;P Transport and in the comments to the post on Schiff v. Hurwitz. I refer readers to Antonin&#8217;s comments [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] fellow blogger Antonin Pribetic and I have discussed this issue on several occasions, for example, in the comments to the post on Progressive Southeastern Insurance v. J&amp;P Transport and in the comments to the post on Schiff v. Hurwitz. I refer readers to Antonin&#8217;s comments [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Dierig v. Lees Leisure Industries &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/07/25/case-of-the-day-progressive-southeastern-insurance-co-v-jp-transport/#comment-219</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Dierig v. Lees Leisure Industries &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:01:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1661#comment-219</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] by the clerk rather than the plaintiff. I have previously written, in the comments to the post on Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co. v. J&#038;P Transport, that I think the first view is right, but I could be wrong about [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] by the clerk rather than the plaintiff. I have previously written, in the comments to the post on Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co. v. J&amp;P Transport, that I think the first view is right, but I could be wrong about [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
