<?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; Boyd-Graves Conference</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/boyd-graves-conference/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:57:25 +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>Boyd-Graves rejects change  in punitive damages limit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/01/boyd-graves-rejects-change-in-punitive-damages-limit/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/01/boyd-graves-rejects-change-in-punitive-damages-limit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:39:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boyd-Graves Conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70433</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[HOT SPRINGS – Despite sentiment for increasing the $350,000 cap on punitive damages in Virginia civil cases, the Boyd-Graves Conference rejected proposals for reform of the state’s punitive damages statute. A proposal to boost the cap to $500,000 failed to reach a consensus at the group’s meeting Oct. 26, as did a proposal to eliminate [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/01/boyd-graves-rejects-change-in-punitive-damages-limit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Boyd Graves: ‘What’s up with mandatory arbitration?’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/11/07/boyd-graves-%e2%80%98what%e2%80%99s-up-with-mandatory-arbitration%e2%80%99/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/11/07/boyd-graves-%e2%80%98what%e2%80%99s-up-with-mandatory-arbitration%e2%80%99/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:23:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ADR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boyd-Graves Conference]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/11/03/boyd-graves-%e2%80%98what%e2%80%99s-up-with-mandatory-arbitration%e2%80%99/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ALEXANDRIA—Plaintiff’s lawyers have complained about mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for years, but it’s a little unusual to hear defense lawyers take up the charge. That’s what happened at the Oct. 28 annual meeting of the Boyd Graves Conference. Norfolk lawyer Wiley F. Mitchell Jr., who chairs a Boyd Graves committee studying Virginia’s arbitration [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/11/07/boyd-graves-%e2%80%98what%e2%80%99s-up-with-mandatory-arbitration%e2%80%99/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bills would increase GDC claim limits&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/01/06/bills-would-increase-gdc-claim-limits/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/01/06/bills-would-increase-gdc-claim-limits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 14:56:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boyd-Graves Conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Assembly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General District Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gov. Bob McDonnell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Trial Lawyers Association]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=59292</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiffs with minor personal injury claims and other civil litigators with small-scale claims may have greater access to Virginia general district courts under a pending legislative proposal. But not everyone thinks that’s a good idea. The plan, contained in two similar bills, would expand the jurisdiction of general district court cases to permit civil cases [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/01/06/bills-would-increase-gdc-claim-limits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Waiver proposal leads bill of fare at Boyd-Graves&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/10/27/waiver-proposal-leads-bill-of-fare-at-boyd-graves/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/10/27/waiver-proposal-leads-bill-of-fare-at-boyd-graves/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:06:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Cooper</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boyd-Graves Conference]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=57916</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Waivers of personal jurisdiction are supposed to be “knowing and intentional.” But Virginia circuit courts do not follow a uniform practice in applying that standard, according to members of the Boyd-Graves Conference. Some courts have held that a defendant has waived jurisdiction when he or an attorney merely shows up at a hearing, McLean lawyer [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/10/27/waiver-proposal-leads-bill-of-fare-at-boyd-graves/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court committee tries again on ‘nullity rule’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/06/23/court-committee-tries-again-on-%e2%80%98nullity-rule%e2%80%99/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/06/23/court-committee-tries-again-on-%e2%80%98nullity-rule%e2%80%99/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:24:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Cooper</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boyd-Graves Conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=55437</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Virginia’s Advisory Committee on Rules of Court is trying again to address the possible injustice of the so-called “nullity” rule, this time with a much more modest proposal. The rule invalidates an action by an attorney who is not licensed at the time he files a pleading. It had a harsh [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/06/23/court-committee-tries-again-on-%e2%80%98nullity-rule%e2%80%99/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
