<?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: NorthShore Regional Medical Center v. Dill	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/03/27/case-of-the-day-northshore-regional-medical-center-v-dill/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/03/27/case-of-the-day-northshore-regional-medical-center-v-dill/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Dec 2024 04:07:13 +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: In re Skyport Global Communications &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/03/27/case-of-the-day-northshore-regional-medical-center-v-dill/#comment-1239</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: In re Skyport Global Communications &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2015 10:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=13485#comment-1239</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] As we know, a central authority&#8217;s Article 6 certification at least is prima facie evidence that service has been effected. And the judge in Skyport recognized several cases adopting that rule. But oddly, he then wrote that Schermerhorn had &#8220;failed to cite the Bankruptcy Court to any authority supporting their argument that the Certificate from the Canadian Central Authority was sufficient to prove that service had been made in compliance with the Hague Convention and local Canadian law.&#8221; [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] As we know, a central authority&#8217;s Article 6 certification at least is prima facie evidence that service has been effected. And the judge in Skyport recognized several cases adopting that rule. But oddly, he then wrote that Schermerhorn had &#8220;failed to cite the Bankruptcy Court to any authority supporting their argument that the Certificate from the Canadian Central Authority was sufficient to prove that service had been made in compliance with the Hague Convention and local Canadian law.&#8221; [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Daguerre v. Rabizadeh &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/03/27/case-of-the-day-northshore-regional-medical-center-v-dill/#comment-1238</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Daguerre v. Rabizadeh &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2014 11:00:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=13485#comment-1238</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] case is rightly decided. But the case arises in an interesting posture. I&#8217;ve previously observed that courts treat an Article 6 certification by a central authority under the Hague Service [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] case is rightly decided. But the case arises in an interesting posture. I&#8217;ve previously observed that courts treat an Article 6 certification by a central authority under the Hague Service [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
