<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">

    <channel>
    
    <title>SLAPP Law</title>
    <link>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php</link>
    <description></description>
    <dc:language>en</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>scott4670@gmail.com</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights>Copyright 2007</dc:rights>
    <dc:date>2007-08-28T14:54:00-08:00</dc:date>
    <admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.expressionengine.com/" />
    

    <item>
      <title>Court of Appeals reverses trial court grant of order striking complaint in Freeman v. Schack</title>
     <link>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/display_article/facts_in_malpractice_case_do_not_justify_striking_complaint_as_a_slapp_acti/</link>
      <guid>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/display_article/facts_in_malpractice_case_do_not_justify_striking_complaint_as_a_slapp_acti/</guid>
      <description>Fourth District Court of Appeal reverses a ruling granting an order to strike a complaint against an attorney for malpractice.  The Court found that the anti&#45;SLAPP statute was not triggered where the plaintiff’s cause of action was primarily based on the defendant’s undertaking to represent a party with interests adverse to the plaintiffs in violation of the duty of loyalty owed to plaintiffs through prior litigation.</description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2007-08-28T14:54:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    
    </channel>
</rss>
