<?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/"
	xmlns:series="http://unfoldingneurons.com/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rehearing denied in the Stowers-doctrine case as it approached the 180-day deadline</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scotxblog.com/case-notes/rehearing-denied-in-the-stowers-doctrine-case-as-it-approached-the-180-day-deadline/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scotxblog.com/case-notes/rehearing-denied-in-the-stowers-doctrine-case-as-it-approached-the-180-day-deadline/</link>
	<description>Legal Issues Before the Texas Supreme Court</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:20:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: New CVSG; Exxon well-plugging cases to be reheard; a (rare) improvident grant; four new grants [orders Nov. 20, 2009]</title>
		<link>http://www.scotxblog.com/case-notes/rehearing-denied-in-the-stowers-doctrine-case-as-it-approached-the-180-day-deadline/comment-page-1/#comment-2265</link>
		<dc:creator>New CVSG; Exxon well-plugging cases to be reheard; a (rare) improvident grant; four new grants [orders Nov. 20, 2009]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:26:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotxblog.com/case-notes/rehearing-denied-in-the-stowers-doctrine-case-as-it-approached-the-180-day-deadline/#comment-2265</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] the Texas Supreme Court has only 180 days to decide motions for rehearing, as I blogged about in a different context. [&#8617;] The previous order list with such an order is here. [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the Texas Supreme Court has only 180 days to decide motions for rehearing, as I blogged about in a different context. [&#8617;] The previous order list with such an order is here. [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dallas Area Law &#8211; Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Stowers Doctrine Before Texas Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.scotxblog.com/case-notes/rehearing-denied-in-the-stowers-doctrine-case-as-it-approached-the-180-day-deadline/comment-page-1/#comment-2187</link>
		<dc:creator>Dallas Area Law &#8211; Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Stowers Doctrine Before Texas Supreme Court</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:10:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotxblog.com/case-notes/rehearing-denied-in-the-stowers-doctrine-case-as-it-approached-the-180-day-deadline/#comment-2187</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] Texas Supreme Court recently denied rehearing a case about the Stowers doctrine, a legal doctrine about the duty of insurance companies to their insured in claims for the [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Texas Supreme Court recently denied rehearing a case about the Stowers doctrine, a legal doctrine about the duty of insurance companies to their insured in claims for the [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

