<?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; Defamation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/defamation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:27:57 +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>Supreme Court reverses ban on Internet criticism&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/03/supreme-court-reverses-ban-on-internet-criticism/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/03/supreme-court-reverses-ban-on-internet-criticism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 20:25:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfax County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Thomas A. Fortkort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71692</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Virginia acted swiftly last month to overturn a lower court’s takedown order directing a disgruntled consumer to remove critical online postings about a contractor. The high court vacated a Dec. 7 order from Fairfax Circuit Judge Thomas A. Fortkort ordering Jane Perez of Fairfax County to delete certain accusations about Dietz [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/03/supreme-court-reverses-ban-on-internet-criticism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Website must identify ‘John Doe’ posters&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/03/website-must-identify-john-doe-posters/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/03/website-must-identify-john-doe-posters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:53:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alexandria Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Clark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria Circuit Court says a Virginia carpet cleaning business may subpoena information on persons who posted anonymous complaints about the business on Yelp.com, a California-based social networking site. The court said it would enforce a subpoena served by the Virginia business on Yelp’s registered agent in Virginia, asking for information about three “John Doe” [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/03/website-must-identify-john-doe-posters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bank sanctioned $7,500 for wrongful foreclosure&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/01/judge-orders-bank-to-pay-sanctions-in-foreclosure-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/01/judge-orders-bank-to-pay-sanctions-in-foreclosure-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:07:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge B. Waugh Crigler]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A bank that paid $70,000 to settle a defamation action after mistakenly starting foreclosure proceedings against a Rockingham County woman has been ordered to pay an additional $7,500 for its delay in delivering the settlement checks. U.S. Magistrate Judge B. Waugh Crigler found Bank of America “willfully failed to comply” with both the terms of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/01/judge-orders-bank-to-pay-sanctions-in-foreclosure-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Accusations about affair not defamatory&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/26/accusations-about-affair-not-defamatory/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/26/accusations-about-affair-not-defamatory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:08:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Louis Allen Sherman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A personal trainer who said she lost her job because of statements made by the husband of a woman she allegedly pursued romantically can’t sue him. The husband was protected from a defamation claim because his complaints about his wife’s extramarital affair –?to the health club the family belonged to and to the private school [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/26/accusations-about-affair-not-defamatory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Marketing company’s emails not defamatory&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/21/marketing-companys-emails-not-defamatory/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/21/marketing-companys-emails-not-defamatory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:50:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge John A. Gibney Jr.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69665</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When the business relationship between a computer seller and its marketing firm soured, the emails started to fly. The emails may have made matters worse, but a federal judge drew the line at a suit for defamation when he dismissed the computer seller’s defamation claims earlier this month. In 2008, Richmond-based computer seller Velocity Micro [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/21/marketing-companys-emails-not-defamatory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No tort claim for sharing ‘defamatory’ web links&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/17/no-tort-claim-for-sharing-defamatory-web-links/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/17/no-tort-claim-for-sharing-defamatory-web-links/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:52:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert G. Doumar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69065</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An advertising company can’t sue a competitor for notifying potential customers about critical Internet postings, says a Norfolk federal court. Businesses know how online chatter can shape their reputations. With whole websites devoted to consumer complaints, wireless word-of-mouth can amplify any bad buzz about a product or service. Companies that have tried to fight back [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/17/no-tort-claim-for-sharing-defamatory-web-links/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Doctor’s defamation claim in Fairfax can go forward&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/03/doctors-defamation-claim-in-fairfax-can-go-forward/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/03/doctors-defamation-claim-in-fairfax-can-go-forward/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:01:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfax County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Jane Marum Roush]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68764</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An orthopedic surgeon who said he was forced out of a job at Inova Fairfax Hospital can sue the hospital and several doctors for defamation for complaints about his conduct that could be deemed factual statements, not just opinions about the surgeon’s judgment and skills. Dr. Adel Kebaish sued the hospital, an administrator and 10 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/03/doctors-defamation-claim-in-fairfax-can-go-forward/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Church can’t stop man from posting discovery&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/30/church-cant-stop-man-from-posting-discovery/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/30/church-cant-stop-man-from-posting-discovery/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:54:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Fletcher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfax County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Charles James Maxfield]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68571</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A church that filed a defamation lawsuit based on commentary posted on a website cannot prevent the defendant from publishing any information he gains through discovery. A Fairfax Circuit judge denied the church’s request for a protective order and said it must answer the defendant’s interrogatories within 14 days. The World Mission Society Church of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/30/church-cant-stop-man-from-posting-discovery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Newspaper defamed school principal and his son, jury finds &#8211; $3,000,000 Verdict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/11/newspaper-defamed-school-principal-and-his-son-jury-finds-3000000-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/11/newspaper-defamed-school-principal-and-his-son-jury-finds-3000000-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:42:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chesapeake Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Randall D. Smith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Million-Dollar Verdicts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=67632</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On Dec. 18, 2009, The Virginian-Pilot published a news article, authored by Louis Hansen, about Phillip Webb, a public school assistant principal, and his son, a student in the same school system. Plaintiff alleged the defendant newspaper falsely implied that he had improperly used his position to obtain preferential treatment for his student son. In [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/11/newspaper-defamed-school-principal-and-his-son-jury-finds-3000000-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Statements were opinion, judge rules&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/04/statements-were-opinion-judge-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/04/statements-were-opinion-judge-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:18:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Fletcher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry E. Hudson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/04/statements-were-opinion-judge-rules/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An ex-client’s comment that he was “disappointed” with the work quality of a law firm and that his company had to “re-do” the firm’s work are statements of opinion that will not support a defamation claim, a federal judge in Richmond has held. In general, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said, statements involving job [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/04/statements-were-opinion-judge-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
