<?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>Christie Law Group</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.christielawgroup.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.christielawgroup.com</link>
	<description>Seattle WA Law Firm &#124; Civil Rights, Trial Practice, Employer Liability. Lawyer Robert Christie, Jason Rosen, Thomas Miller</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:00:19 +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>Ford v. City of Yakima&#8211;Federal Judge rejects plaintiff&#8217;s claim that arrest was done in violation of First Amendment</title>
		<link>http://www.christielawgroup.com/civil-rights/ford-v-city-of-yakima-federal-judge-rejects-plaintiffs-claim-that-arrest-was-done-in-violation-of-first-amendment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.christielawgroup.com/civil-rights/ford-v-city-of-yakima-federal-judge-rejects-plaintiffs-claim-that-arrest-was-done-in-violation-of-first-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 03:25:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ford v. City of Yakima]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christielawgroup.com/?p=233</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Judge Suko has granted our motion to dismiss all of plaintiff&#8217;s claims against the City of Yakima and the arresting officer in this well-reasoned decision....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.christielawgroup.com/civil-rights/ford-v-city-of-yakima-federal-judge-rejects-plaintiffs-claim-that-arrest-was-done-in-violation-of-first-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bainbridge Police Guild v. Mercer Island and Puyallup, pending decision by the Washington State Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/bainbridge-police-guild-v-mercer-island-and-puyallup-pending-oral-argument-in-the-washington-state-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/bainbridge-police-guild-v-mercer-island-and-puyallup-pending-oral-argument-in-the-washington-state-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2010 03:38:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appellate Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bainbridge Police Guild v. Mercer Island and Puyallup]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christielawgroup.dreamhosters.com/?p=161</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is an important case to the law enforcement community, presenting the issue of whether the internal investigation file of a police officer is subject...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/bainbridge-police-guild-v-mercer-island-and-puyallup-pending-oral-argument-in-the-washington-state-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beaver v. City of Federal Way&#8211;multiple Taser applications within scope of qualified immunity</title>
		<link>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/beaver-v-city-of-federal-way-multiple-taser-applications-within-scope-of-qualified-immunity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/beaver-v-city-of-federal-way-multiple-taser-applications-within-scope-of-qualified-immunity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 03:40:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appellate Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beaver v. Federal Way]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christielawgroup.com/?p=205</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We successfully defended the City of Federal Way and two of its officers in a case that has drawn some attention because of the District...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/beaver-v-city-of-federal-way-multiple-taser-applications-within-scope-of-qualified-immunity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://www.christielawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Beaver-v-Fed-Way-oral-argument.mov" length="3330597" type="video/quicktime" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Caldwell v. City of Bellingham&#8211;A win for Bellingham: Judge Lasnick dismisses all claims, finding no 14th Amendment right and probable cause for the officers&#8217; actions.</title>
		<link>http://www.christielawgroup.com/civil-rights/caldwell-v-city-of-bellingham-a-win-for-bellingham-judge-lasnick-dismisses-all-claims-finding-no-14th-amendment-right-of-familial-relations-and-probable-cause-for-the-officers-actions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.christielawgroup.com/civil-rights/caldwell-v-city-of-bellingham-a-win-for-bellingham-judge-lasnick-dismisses-all-claims-finding-no-14th-amendment-right-of-familial-relations-and-probable-cause-for-the-officers-actions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 00:09:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Caldwell v. City of Bellingham]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christielawgroup.com/?p=194</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Civil rights case against City of Bellingham and two officers dismissed entirely for lack of merit.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.christielawgroup.com/civil-rights/caldwell-v-city-of-bellingham-a-win-for-bellingham-judge-lasnick-dismisses-all-claims-finding-no-14th-amendment-right-of-familial-relations-and-probable-cause-for-the-officers-actions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hinz v. City of Everett–District Court dismissed plaintiff’s case with well reasoned decision</title>
		<link>http://www.christielawgroup.com/civil-rights/hinz-v-city-of-everett-district-court-dismissed-plaintiffs-case-with-well-reasoned-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://www.christielawgroup.com/civil-rights/hinz-v-city-of-everett-district-court-dismissed-plaintiffs-case-with-well-reasoned-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:08:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hinz v. City of Everett–District Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christielawgroup.dreamhosters.com/?p=169</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Federal judge grants our motion to dismiss civil rights suit against officers conducting investigative stop with weapons drawn, finding that the use of force was objectively reasonable under the "Graham" factors, consistent with the Fourth Amendment.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.christielawgroup.com/civil-rights/hinz-v-city-of-everett-district-court-dismissed-plaintiffs-case-with-well-reasoned-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gregoire v. City of Oak Harbor, still pending final decision by the Washington State Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/gregoire-v-city-of-oak-harbor-pending-decision-by-the-washington-state-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/gregoire-v-city-of-oak-harbor-pending-decision-by-the-washington-state-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:27:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appellate Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gregoire v. City of Oak Harbor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christielawgroup.dreamhosters.com/?p=160</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mr. Christie and Mr. Rosen obtained a defense verdict in May 2006 in Island County Superior Court on behalf of their client, the City of...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/gregoire-v-city-of-oak-harbor-pending-decision-by-the-washington-state-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Assoc. v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn.2d 342 (2006)-Washington State Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/pacific-northwest-shooting-park-assoc-v-city-of-sequim-158-wn-2d-342-2006-washington-state-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/pacific-northwest-shooting-park-assoc-v-city-of-sequim-158-wn-2d-342-2006-washington-state-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:14:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appellate Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Assoc. v. City of Sequim]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/pacific-northwest-shooting-park-assoc-v-city-of-sequim-158-wn-2d-342-2006-washington-state-supreme-court/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We represented the City of Sequim in a suit brought by this association that held a gun show in city facilities.  When the city imposed...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/pacific-northwest-shooting-park-assoc-v-city-of-sequim-158-wn-2d-342-2006-washington-state-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kamla v. Space Needle, 147 Wn.2d 114 (2002)-Washington State Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/kamla-v-space-needle-147-wn-2d-114-2002-washington-state-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/kamla-v-space-needle-147-wn-2d-114-2002-washington-state-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:14:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appellate Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kamla v. Space Needle]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://christielawgroup.com/?p=115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is another major decision addressing the important issue of whether an owner of a building, who hires a specialty contractor, is legally responsible for...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/kamla-v-space-needle-147-wn-2d-114-2002-washington-state-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hanson vs. City of Snohomish, 121 Wn.2d 552 (1993)-Washington State Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/hanson-vs-city-of-snohomish-121-wn-2d-552-1993-washington-state-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/hanson-vs-city-of-snohomish-121-wn-2d-552-1993-washington-state-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:13:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appellate Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hanson v. City of Snohomish]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://christielawgroup.com/?p=113</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This landmark case adopted the rule that claims for malicious prosecution are barred in a civil case that follows a successful criminal conviction, even if...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.christielawgroup.com/appellate-practice/hanson-vs-city-of-snohomish-121-wn-2d-552-1993-washington-state-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A.G. Design &amp; Assoc. v. Trainman Lantern-Business Interference</title>
		<link>http://www.christielawgroup.com/breach-of-contract/a-g-design-assoc-v-trainman-lantern-business-interference/</link>
		<comments>http://www.christielawgroup.com/breach-of-contract/a-g-design-assoc-v-trainman-lantern-business-interference/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:12:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Breach of Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[A.G. Design & Assoc. v. Trainman Lantern-Business Interference]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://christielawgroup.com/?p=111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We represent A.G. Design, a company with a patent on the trainman lantern used by railroad workers throughout the United States and Canada.  When a...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.christielawgroup.com/breach-of-contract/a-g-design-assoc-v-trainman-lantern-business-interference/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

