<?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; Judge Andre M. Davis</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-andre-m-davis/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:06:07 +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>Winning Party’s ESI Cost Recovery Limited&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/winning-partys-esi-cost-recovery-limited/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/winning-partys-esi-cost-recovery-limited/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 16:46:11 +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[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Andre M. Davis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74134</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a wine wholesaler’s unfair practices lawsuit against Gallo Winery, the 4th Circuit clarifies which ESI expenses are taxable under the federal taxation-of-costs statute, and upholds a district court decision refusing to award costs for a broad array of ESI-related costs and awarding the winning winery only $218.59 for TIFF and PDF production of documents, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/winning-partys-esi-cost-recovery-limited/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>4th Circuit limits winner’s e-discovery cost recovery&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/02/4th-circuit-limits-winners-e-discovery-cost-recovery/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/02/4th-circuit-limits-winners-e-discovery-cost-recovery/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 13:40:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Andre M. Davis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74098</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tech wizards may tell lawyers that e-discovery advances will cut litigation costs, but lawyers know that the more data is out there, the more their opponents want. There may have been some hope for recovery of the costs for production of electronically stored information, or ESI, under the federal taxation-of-costs statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/02/4th-circuit-limits-winners-e-discovery-cost-recovery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Homeowners’ HAMP &amp; Contract Claims Dismissed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/homeowners-hamp-contract-claims-dismissed/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/homeowners-hamp-contract-claims-dismissed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Andre M. Davis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73982</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maryland homeowners who were denied a mortgage loan modification under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program cannot sue their mortgage servicer Wells Fargo Bank under HAMP or under various state law theories of recovery, and the 4th Circuit upholds dismissal of their lawsuit. HAMP has given rise to a large number of civil claims by [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/homeowners-hamp-contract-claims-dismissed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Record Adequate Without Wiretap Recordings&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/02/record-adequate-without-wiretap-recordings/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/02/record-adequate-without-wiretap-recordings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:26:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Andre M. Davis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73545</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although none of the recordings of wiretapped conversations played during trial to bolster witnesses’ trial testimony about the charged drug conspiracy had been recorded or transcribed by the court reporter during their presentation to the jury, defendant may not overturn his conviction; the 4th Circuit says the appellate record fully and accurately reflects the pretrial [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/02/record-adequate-without-wiretap-recordings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Defamation Defense Under Renter’s Policy&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/no-defamation-defense-under-renters-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/no-defamation-defense-under-renters-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:46:38 +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[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Andre M. Davis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73169</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although a parent defending a defamation suit says her only intention in accusing an aide at the Maryland School for the Deaf of sexually abusing her son was to protect the child, the accusation nevertheless was an intentional act, and not an “occurrence” under her renter’s insurance policy that would trigger Allstate’s duty to defend; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/no-defamation-defense-under-renters-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No ‘Reasonable Access’ to Copyrighted Home Designs&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/no-reasonable-access-to-copyrighted-home-designs/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/no-reasonable-access-to-copyrighted-home-designs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:47:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Andre M. Davis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although plaintiff architecture firm had its copyrighted designs for three home models – the Chadwyck, the Ballantrae and the Springfield, online and had cut sheets and sales handouts available for the Chadwyck, the firm nevertheless failed to show that defendant builder had access to the copyrighted designs through defendant’s own due diligence or otherwise had [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/no-reasonable-access-to-copyrighted-home-designs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buyer-Only Arbitration Clause Unenforceable&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/buyer-only-arbitration-clause-unenforceable/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/buyer-only-arbitration-clause-unenforceable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:46:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Andre M. Davis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72892</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A real estate contract clause that required the buyer – but not the seller – to submit to arbitration is unenforceable under Maryland law for lack of mutual consideration, and the 4th Circuit affirms judgment for plaintiff buyers who are seeking return of their deposit on a luxury home after they were unable to obtain [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/buyer-only-arbitration-clause-unenforceable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No ERISA Claim Against BOA Benefits Committee&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/no-erisa-claim-against-boa-benefits-committee/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/no-erisa-claim-against-boa-benefits-committee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Andre M. Davis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 4th Circuit upholds dismissal of a putative class claim by participants in two BOA retirement plans, alleging defendant members of the Bank’s Corporate Benefits Committee breached their ERISA fiduciary duties by putting Bank-affiliated mutual funds in the Bank’s 401(k) investment menu; the district court did not err in dismissing claims related to the Pension [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/no-erisa-claim-against-boa-benefits-committee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mandate Rule Precludes Restitution Reduction&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/08/mandate-rule-precludes-restitution-reduction/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/08/mandate-rule-precludes-restitution-reduction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:32:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Andre M. Davis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71821</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 4th Circuit vacates a district court order requiring defendant, convicted of a fraudulent sweepstakes scheme, on remand, to pay $20.7 million in restitution; this court’s mandate dealt only with the length of defendant’s sentence, not the amount of restitution, and the district court is ordered to reinstate the prior order requiring defendant to pay [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/08/mandate-rule-precludes-restitution-reduction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ID Testimony Was Plain Error, But Conviction Upheld&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/08/id-testimony-was-plain-error-but-conviction-upheld/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/08/id-testimony-was-plain-error-but-conviction-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:14:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Andre M. Davis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71815</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although it was plain error for the trial court to allow the prosecutor’s suggestive line of questioning by asking a bank teller to identify similarities between the defendant and the person who robbed the bank 17 months earlier, the 4th Circuit affirms defendant’s bank robbery conviction because there was sufficient independent evidence to support his [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/08/id-testimony-was-plain-error-but-conviction-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
