<?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>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Admiralty</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/admiralty/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 20:24:01 +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>Charterer Can’t Collect with Alter Ego Theory&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/13/charterer-cant-collect-with-alter-ego-theory/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/13/charterer-cant-collect-with-alter-ego-theory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:59:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admiralty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge G. Steven Agee]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72551</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A district court had admiralty jurisdiction to consider appeal of a ship charterer’s attempt to collect on a judgment against the ship’s owner by attaching a vessel docked at Baltimore, but the 4th Circuit upholds the district court’s decision to vacate its ex parte order of attachment and dismiss the ship charterer’s complaint based on [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/13/charterer-cant-collect-with-alter-ego-theory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Jones Act Claim for Intoxicated Seaman&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/no-jones-act-claim-for-intoxicated-seaman/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/no-jones-act-claim-for-intoxicated-seaman/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:15:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admiralty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Tommy E. Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72517</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although plaintiff was on land when he injured his hand while shucking oysters for defendant seafood company, he spent most of his time on the water dredging oysters or crabbing for defendant, and the Newport News U.S. District Court says plaintiff was a “seaman” for purposes of suing under the Jones Act; however, the court [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/no-jones-act-claim-for-intoxicated-seaman/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nonsuited Jones Act Claim Filed Too Late&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/09/nonsuited-jones-act-claim-filed-too-late/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/09/nonsuited-jones-act-claim-filed-too-late/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:55:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admiralty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Charles E. Poston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70804</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An injured seaman who filed Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims in state court, then nonsuited, is still bound by the three-year limitations period for such claims; the Norfolk Circuit Court says these claims are time-barred, as the State Savings Statute did not extend the federal limitations period and the three-year period was not equitably tolled. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/09/nonsuited-jones-act-claim-filed-too-late/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oyster-Shucking Injury May Be Jones Act Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/oyster-shucking-injury-may-be-jones-act-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/oyster-shucking-injury-may-be-jones-act-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:59:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admiralty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Tommy E. Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69792</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff who was shucking oysters for defendant seafood company may have a Jones Act claim for injury to his left pinky finger from moving a conveyor belt while he was shucking oysters, leading amputation at the first joint; the Newport News U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge denies the seafood company’s motion for summary judgment [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/oyster-shucking-injury-may-be-jones-act-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Causation for Jones Act Recovery&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/no-causation-for-jones-act-recovery/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/no-causation-for-jones-act-recovery/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:53:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admiralty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth A. McClanahan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69743</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A first mate who injured his back when he jumped from the commercial fishing vessel onto dock to catch lines cannot collect damages of $538,151.50 on his Jones Act claim because he did not shown causation for his claim that defendant owner’s failure to have him undergo a pre-hire MRI to assess his physical ability [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/no-causation-for-jones-act-recovery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Trial, Not Remittur, After $25M Award&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/new-trial-not-remittur-after-25m-award/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/new-trial-not-remittur-after-25m-award/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:52:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admiralty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Virginia reverses a trial court decision setting aside a circuit court’s award of $2 million (reduced from a $25 million jury award) to a merchant seaman who said the shipping company he worked for fired him rather than responding properly to his allegation that he had been sexually assaulted by South [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/new-trial-not-remittur-after-25m-award/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>$2 Million Award to Sailor’s Widow Reinstated&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/20/2-million-award-to-sailors-widow-reinstated/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/20/2-million-award-to-sailors-widow-reinstated/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:36:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admiralty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Donald W. Lemons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69651</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On rehearing, the Supreme Court of Virginia reinstates a jury award of $2 million nonpecuniary damages to a widow for the pre-death pain and suffering of a Navy sailor who died of mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos while working as a ship fitter, modifying its opinion in John Crane Inc. v. Hardick, Executor [VLW 012-6-038.] [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/20/2-million-award-to-sailors-widow-reinstated/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Allision Liability in Dispute&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/02/allision-liability-in-dispute/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/02/allision-liability-in-dispute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:17:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admiralty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert G. Doumar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68731</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Virginia’s action for damages to a bridge sign and cables, a tugboat company whose employee fell asleep is not entitled to summary judgment based on Virginia’s alleged lack of a permit, the Norfolk U.S. District Court says; tugboat shows neither proximate causation nor comparative fault. At 5:25 a.m. one November morning, tug boat’s employee [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/02/allision-liability-in-dispute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Quasi-Contract Claim is Maritime Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/05/quasi-contract-claim-is-maritime-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/05/quasi-contract-claim-is-maritime-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:22:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admiralty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Norman K. Moon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Lynchburg U.S. District Court declines to dismiss a South African freight-forwarding company’s suit against defendant, a Lynchburg company that imports and sells linens, for failure to pay for an international shipment of hotel bed linens; the dispute falls within the court’s quasi-contract admiralty jurisdiction. For a district court to have proper subject matter jurisdiction [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/05/quasi-contract-claim-is-maritime-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Conveys Titanic Salvage Artifacts&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/15/court-conveys-titanic-salvage-artifacts/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/15/court-conveys-titanic-salvage-artifacts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 16:44:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admiralty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Rebecca Beach Smith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/15/court-conveys-titanic-salvage-artifacts/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Norfolk U.S. District Court conveys title to the artifacts salvaged from the R.M.S. Titanic to R.M.S. Titanic Inc., but such title is fully subject to the covenants and conditions that the U.S., through the U.S. Attorney, negotiated and finalized with RMST and the court. On Aug. 12, 2010, this court granted R.M.S. Titanic Inc. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/15/court-conveys-titanic-salvage-artifacts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
