<?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: Davis v. Zhou Liang	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/11/26/case-of-the-day-davis-v-zhou-liang/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/11/26/case-of-the-day-davis-v-zhou-liang/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 02:57:28 +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: Davis v. Zhou &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/11/26/case-of-the-day-davis-v-zhou-liang/#comment-3215</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Davis v. Zhou &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2020 12:22:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=27755#comment-3215</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] case of the day is Davis v. Zhou (9th Cir. 2019). I covered the case in November 2018. Zhou Liang, a Chinese national, was driving a rental car in Seattle when he collided with a city [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] case of the day is Davis v. Zhou (9th Cir. 2019). I covered the case in November 2018. Zhou Liang, a Chinese national, was driving a rental car in Seattle when he collided with a city [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ted Folkman		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/11/26/case-of-the-day-davis-v-zhou-liang/#comment-3214</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ted Folkman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:32:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=27755#comment-3214</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/11/26/case-of-the-day-davis-v-zhou-liang/#comment-3213&quot;&gt;Aaron Lukken&lt;/a&gt;.

The Ninth Circuit has a recent decision that addresses the state/federal interplay, though not in the terms you suggest. &lt;i&gt;Whidbee v. Pierce County,&lt;/i&gt; 857 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2017). &lt;i&gt;Whidbee&lt;/i&gt; is a removal case; I am not sure whether there is a Ninth Circuit case that arises when the case was brought in the district court in the first instance.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/11/26/case-of-the-day-davis-v-zhou-liang/#comment-3213">Aaron Lukken</a>.</p>
<p>The Ninth Circuit has a recent decision that addresses the state/federal interplay, though not in the terms you suggest. <i>Whidbee v. Pierce County,</i> 857 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2017). <i>Whidbee</i> is a removal case; I am not sure whether there is a Ninth Circuit case that arises when the case was brought in the district court in the first instance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Aaron Lukken		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/11/26/case-of-the-day-davis-v-zhou-liang/#comment-3213</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aaron Lukken]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:07:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=27755#comment-3213</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[An interesting &lt;i&gt;Erie&lt;/i&gt; conflict there&#8212;FRCP 4(m) would clearly govern whether the initiation of service was timely (i.e., no specific deadline, but a reasonable diligence standard).  But if the state statute of limitation requires a hard 90-day deadline, there&#039;s a problem.   I see an equal protection argument brewing &#8230;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An interesting <i>Erie</i> conflict there&mdash;FRCP 4(m) would clearly govern whether the initiation of service was timely (i.e., no specific deadline, but a reasonable diligence standard).  But if the state statute of limitation requires a hard 90-day deadline, there&#8217;s a problem.   I see an equal protection argument brewing &hellip;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
