<?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: The Supreme Court, Service of Process, and Legal History: Part 1 of a Letters Blogatory Polemic	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/04/14/the-supreme-court-service-of-process-and-legal-history-part-1-of-a-letters-blogatory-polemic/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/04/14/the-supreme-court-service-of-process-and-legal-history-part-1-of-a-letters-blogatory-polemic/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2024 10:01:08 +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: South32 Chile v. Sumtomo &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/04/14/the-supreme-court-service-of-process-and-legal-history-part-1-of-a-letters-blogatory-polemic/#comment-20212</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: South32 Chile v. Sumtomo &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2024 10:01:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=24665#comment-20212</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] plaintiffs, and why the law developed coercive means to bring defendants before the court. I wrote a few posts about this legal history back in 2017. But a subpoena really is a command. So it&#8217;s not something that an American [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] plaintiffs, and why the law developed coercive means to bring defendants before the court. I wrote a few posts about this legal history back in 2017. But a subpoena really is a command. So it&#8217;s not something that an American [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Looming Problem of the Day: In re Application of del Valle Ruiz &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/04/14/the-supreme-court-service-of-process-and-legal-history-part-1-of-a-letters-blogatory-polemic/#comment-2865</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Looming Problem of the Day: In re Application of del Valle Ruiz &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:49:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=24665#comment-2865</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] the law in terms of coercive sanctions that could eventually follow from disobedience. Read my three-part polemic on legal history and service of process for some thoughts on the conceptual link we make between [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] the law in terms of coercive sanctions that could eventually follow from disobedience. Read my three-part polemic on legal history and service of process for some thoughts on the conceptual link we make between [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Lunn v. Commonwealth &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/04/14/the-supreme-court-service-of-process-and-legal-history-part-1-of-a-letters-blogatory-polemic/#comment-2864</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Lunn v. Commonwealth &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:00:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=24665#comment-2864</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] right to say that at common law there was no civil power of arrest. At common law, as we saw in my two posts on service of process in the olden days, at a certain period of development it was not just [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] right to say that at common law there was no civil power of arrest. At common law, as we saw in my two posts on service of process in the olden days, at a certain period of development it was not just [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: The Supreme Court, Service of Process, and Legal History: Part 3 of a Letters Blogatory Polemic &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/04/14/the-supreme-court-service-of-process-and-legal-history-part-1-of-a-letters-blogatory-polemic/#comment-2863</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Supreme Court, Service of Process, and Legal History: Part 3 of a Letters Blogatory Polemic &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=24665#comment-2863</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] and final post in my series on service of process and legal history. I encourage you to read the first [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] and final post in my series on service of process and legal history. I encourage you to read the first [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: The Supreme Court, Service of Process, and Legal History: Part 2 of a Letters Blogatory Polemic &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/04/14/the-supreme-court-service-of-process-and-legal-history-part-1-of-a-letters-blogatory-polemic/#comment-2862</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Supreme Court, Service of Process, and Legal History: Part 2 of a Letters Blogatory Polemic &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2017 10:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=24665#comment-2862</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] This is part two of my series on legal history and service of process. You should start by reading Part 1. [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] This is part two of my series on legal history and service of process. You should start by reading Part 1. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ian D. Withers		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/04/14/the-supreme-court-service-of-process-and-legal-history-part-1-of-a-letters-blogatory-polemic/#comment-2861</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ian D. Withers]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Apr 2017 14:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=24665#comment-2861</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Most interesting! and not to forget that despite this time-consuming process of Notifying a Defendant of a Claim, Service was complicated by No Service on Sundays and Holy days, and No Service in Church, Parliament or Court precints! Fortunately, all a little easier now, or is it &#8230;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most interesting! and not to forget that despite this time-consuming process of Notifying a Defendant of a Claim, Service was complicated by No Service on Sundays and Holy days, and No Service in Church, Parliament or Court precints! Fortunately, all a little easier now, or is it &hellip;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
