<?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: In re Schlich	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/07/02/case-of-the-day-in-re-schlich-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/07/02/case-of-the-day-in-re-schlich-2/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:27:01 +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 Application of Biomet Orthopaedics &#124; Letters Blogatory &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/07/02/case-of-the-day-in-re-schlich-2/#comment-3103</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: In re Application of Biomet Orthopaedics &#124; Letters Blogatory &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2018 13:20:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=26911#comment-3103</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] non-receptivity. This is the majority rule, but recall the First Circuit&#8217;s recent decision in In re Schlich, which held that it was a mistake to think the parties had burdens of proof on each Intel [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] non-receptivity. This is the majority rule, but recall the First Circuit&#8217;s recent decision in In re Schlich, which held that it was a mistake to think the parties had burdens of proof on each Intel [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
