<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Law Offices of Martin Buchanan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.martinbuchanan.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.martinbuchanan.com</link>
	<description>San Diego Appeal Lawyer Martin Buchanan</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:27:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases</title>
		<link>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/appeals/creditdebit-card-tying-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/appeals/creditdebit-card-tying-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:57:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.martinbuchanan.com/?p=137</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 9, 2012, Martin won a reversal of a judgment approving a $31 million class action settlement against Visa and MasterCard.  Martin represented a named plaintiff in another class action against Visa and MasterCard whose claims were released as part of the settlement.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On January 9, 2012, Martin won a reversal of a judgment approving a $31 million class action settlement against Visa and MasterCard.  Martin represented a named plaintiff in another class action against Visa and MasterCard whose claims were released as part of the settlement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/appeals/creditdebit-card-tying-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2011 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America</title>
		<link>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/front/2011-lawdragon-500-leading-lawyers-in-america/</link>
		<comments>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/front/2011-lawdragon-500-leading-lawyers-in-america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2011 10:48:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Front Page]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.martinbuchanan.com/?p=136</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Martin has been selected as one of the 2011 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America.  He is the only appellate lawyer on the list with offices outside Washington, D.C.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Martin has been selected as one of the 2011 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America.  He is the only appellate lawyer on the list with offices outside Washington, D.C.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/front/2011-lawdragon-500-leading-lawyers-in-america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chapman v. Tolo</title>
		<link>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/appeals/chapman-v-tolo/</link>
		<comments>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/appeals/chapman-v-tolo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:12:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.martinbuchanan.com/?p=134</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On December 20, 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmed a $1.8 million judgment in favor of Martin&#8217;s client in a negligence case arising from a car accident.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On December 20, 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmed a $1.8 million judgment in favor of Martin&#8217;s client in a negligence case arising from a car accident.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/appeals/chapman-v-tolo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Recorder 2011 Attorneys of the Year</title>
		<link>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/firm-news/the-recorder-2011-attorneys-of-the-year/</link>
		<comments>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/firm-news/the-recorder-2011-attorneys-of-the-year/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:53:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.martinbuchanan.com/?p=129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Recorder has named Martin Buchanan as one of its 2011 Attorneys of the Year.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>The Recorder </em>has named Martin Buchanan as one of its 2011 Attorneys of the Year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/firm-news/the-recorder-2011-attorneys-of-the-year/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Montz v. Pilgrim Films &amp; Television, Inc.</title>
		<link>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/certiorari/montz-v-pilgrim-films-television-inc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/certiorari/montz-v-pilgrim-films-television-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Nov 2011 22:04:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Petitions for Writ of Certiorari]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.martinbuchanan.com/?p=126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On November 7, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review an en banc  decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Martin&#8217;s clients in Montz v. Pilgrim Films &#38; Television, Inc. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On November 7, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review an en banc  decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Martin&#8217;s clients in <em>Montz v. Pilgrim Films &amp; Television, Inc</em>.<em> </em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/certiorari/montz-v-pilgrim-films-television-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rejai v. Riazati</title>
		<link>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/appeals/rejai-v-riazati/</link>
		<comments>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/appeals/rejai-v-riazati/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:10:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.martinbuchanan.com/?p=122</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On October 21, 2011, Martin won a pro bono appeal affirming the renewal of his client&#8217;s restraining order against an ex-boyfriend.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On October 21, 2011, Martin won a pro bono appeal affirming the renewal of his client&#8217;s restraining order against an ex-boyfriend.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/appeals/rejai-v-riazati/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Daily Journal Top 100 California Lawyers</title>
		<link>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/front/daily-journal-top-100-california-lawyers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/front/daily-journal-top-100-california-lawyers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:05:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Front Page]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.martinbuchanan.com/?p=119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Daily Journal has named Martin Buchanan as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in California for 2011.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <em>Daily Journal</em> has named Martin Buchanan as one of the <a href="http://www.martinbuchanan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Top-100-Lawyers-Daily-Journal-Article.pdf">Top 100 Lawyers</a> in California for 2011.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/front/daily-journal-top-100-california-lawyers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Girardi &amp; Keese v. City of Los Angeles</title>
		<link>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/appeals/girardi-keese-v-city-of-los-angeles/</link>
		<comments>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/appeals/girardi-keese-v-city-of-los-angeles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:54:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.martinbuchanan.com/?p=113</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On September 14, 2011, Martin won a reversal of an order directing a plaintiffs&#8217; law firm to pay the City&#8217;s legal fees for defending a case that was dismissed on summary judgment.  The Court of Appeal found that the trial court had erred in ruling that the law firm did not maintain the action in good [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On September 14, 2011, Martin won a reversal of an order directing a plaintiffs&#8217; law firm to pay the City&#8217;s legal fees for defending a case that was dismissed on summary judgment.  The Court of Appeal found that the trial court had erred in ruling that the law firm did not maintain the action in good faith or with reasonable cause.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/appeals/girardi-keese-v-city-of-los-angeles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Juvenile Justice Commission Award</title>
		<link>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/firm-news/juvenile-justice-commission-award/</link>
		<comments>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/firm-news/juvenile-justice-commission-award/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:22:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.martinbuchanan.com/?p=109</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On July 20, 2011, Martin received the annual Volunteer Award from the San Diego County Juvenile Justice Commission.  The award recognized Martin&#8217;s &#8221;outstanding commitment to youth in the juvenile justice system&#8221; based on his volunteer work at San Diego Teen Court and as a board member for Social Advocates for Youth &#8211; San Diego.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On July 20, 2011, Martin received the annual Volunteer Award from the San Diego County Juvenile Justice Commission.  The award recognized Martin&#8217;s &#8221;outstanding commitment to youth in the juvenile justice system&#8221; based on his volunteer work at San Diego Teen Court and as a board member for Social Advocates for Youth &#8211; San Diego.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/firm-news/juvenile-justice-commission-award/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In re Ortho Evra Litigation</title>
		<link>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/writs/in-re-ortho-evra-litigation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/writs/in-re-ortho-evra-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2011 22:26:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Writs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.martinbuchanan.com/?p=107</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On June 6, 2011, Martin won a writ proceeding in the California Court of Appeal on behalf of three plaintiffs who sued Johnson &#38; Johnson for blood clots caused by the Ortho Evra birth control patch.  Martin was retained to brief and argue the matter after the defendants filed a petition for writ of mandate and the Court [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On June 6, 2011, Martin won a writ proceeding in the California Court of Appeal on behalf of three plaintiffs who sued Johnson &amp; Johnson for blood clots caused by the Ortho Evra birth control patch.  Martin was retained to brief and argue the matter after the defendants filed a petition for writ of mandate and the Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ.  After full briefing and oral argument, the Court of Appeal discharged the alternative writ and summarily dismissed the defendants&#8217; petition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinbuchanan.com/writs/in-re-ortho-evra-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

