<?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>Community Defense Counsel &#187; Category: Case Abstracts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/category-case-abstracts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:30:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit reinstates L.A. SOB ordinance</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/28/9th-circuit-reinstates-l-a-sob-ordinance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/28/9th-circuit-reinstates-l-a-sob-ordinance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:08:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2528</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/01/28/09-55367.pdf"><em>Alameda Books Inc. v. City of Los Angeles</em></a>, No. 09-55367 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2011)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/28/9th-circuit-reinstates-l-a-sob-ordinance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pittsburgh loses appeal of strip club approval</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/12/30/pittsburgh-loses-appeal-of-strip-club-approval/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/12/30/pittsburgh-loses-appeal-of-strip-club-approval/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:43:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB): Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Marquise Investment v. City of Pittsburgh]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2461</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2507CD09_12-30-10.pdf">Marquise Investment, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh</a></em>, No. 2507 C.D. 2009 (Dec. 30, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/12/30/pittsburgh-loses-appeal-of-strip-club-approval/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>VA Court of Appeals: &#8220;Exposed breasts,&#8221; &#8220;sultry pose&#8221; of minor in photograph constitutes child pornography</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/23/va-court-of-appeals-exposed-breasts-sultry-pose-of-minor-in-photograph-constitutes-child-pornography/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/23/va-court-of-appeals-exposed-breasts-sultry-pose-of-minor-in-photograph-constitutes-child-pornography/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:38:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Kellison v. Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2465</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0269102.pdf"><em>Kellison v. Virginia</em></a>, No. 0269-10-2 (Va. App. Nov. 23, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/23/va-court-of-appeals-exposed-breasts-sultry-pose-of-minor-in-photograph-constitutes-child-pornography/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>6th Circuit upholds $3,000 SOB licensing fee</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/23/6th-circuit-upholds-3000-sob-licensing-fee/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/23/6th-circuit-upholds-3000-sob-licensing-fee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 6th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Kentucky]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2463</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0738n-06.pdf"><em>729, Inc. v. Kenton County Fiscal Court</em></a>, No. 09-6291 (6th Cir. Nov. 23, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/23/6th-circuit-upholds-3000-sob-licensing-fee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>5th Circuit: 18-month delay does not render child porn evidence stale</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/04/5th-circuit-18-month-delay-does-not-render-child-porn-evidence-stale/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/04/5th-circuit-18-month-delay-does-not-render-child-porn-evidence-stale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 20:56:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Evidence Rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Staleness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-50283-CR0.wpd.pdf"><em>United States v. David Allen</em></a>, No. 09-50283 (5th Cir. Nov. 4, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/04/5th-circuit-18-month-delay-does-not-render-child-porn-evidence-stale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IN: Crime to surreptitiously videotape one&#8217;s fiancee naked?</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/29/in-crime-to-surreptitiously-videotape-ones-fiancee-naked/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/29/in-crime-to-surreptitiously-videotape-ones-fiancee-naked/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:37:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Indiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Production]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2505</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10291003ewn.pdf"><em>Chiszar v. Indiana</em></a>, No. No. 91A04-1004-CR-290 (Ind. App. Oct. 29, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/29/in-crime-to-surreptitiously-videotape-ones-fiancee-naked/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>3rd Circuit upholds child porn sentence reduction, discusses criticism of sentencing guidelines</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/26/appeals-courts-criticize-child-porn-sentencing-guidelines/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/26/appeals-courts-criticize-child-porn-sentencing-guidelines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:31:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 3rd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Grober]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/091318p.pdf"><em>United States v. Grober</em></a>, No 09-1318 (3rd Cir. Oct. 26, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/26/appeals-courts-criticize-child-porn-sentencing-guidelines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge enjoins new Mass. obscenity law</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/26/judge-enjoins-new-mass-obscenity-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/26/judge-enjoins-new-mass-obscenity-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:14:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Coakley]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/20101027.pdf"><em>American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Coakley</em></a>, No. 10-11165-RWZ (D. Mass. Oct. 26, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/26/judge-enjoins-new-mass-obscenity-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>5th Circuit: Recipient of child pornography can challenge &#8220;sex offender&#8221; label prior to release and registration</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/20/5th-circuit-recipient-of-child-pornography-can-challenge-sex-offender-label-prior-to-release-and-registration/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/20/5th-circuit-recipient-of-child-pornography-can-challenge-sex-offender-label-prior-to-release-and-registration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:04:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sex Offender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Pearson v. Holder]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2421</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-10808-CV0.wpd.pdf"><em>Pearson v. Holder</em></a>, No. 09-10808 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/20/5th-circuit-recipient-of-child-pornography-can-challenge-sex-offender-label-prior-to-release-and-registration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>7th Circuit: SOB crime study does not support hours-of-operation ordinance</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/01/7th-circuit-sob-crime-study-does-not-support-hours-of-operation-ordinance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/01/7th-circuit-sob-crime-study-does-not-support-hours-of-operation-ordinance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 19:53:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Studies: Sexually Oriented Businesses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 7th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Indiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Dr. Richard McCleary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Annex Books v. City of Indianapolis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2401</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/1K0W4VCD.pdf"><em>Annex Books v. City of Indianapolis</em></a>, No. 09-4156 (7th Cir. Oct. 1, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/01/7th-circuit-sob-crime-study-does-not-support-hours-of-operation-ordinance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

