<?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 Clifford R. Weckstein</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-clifford-r-weckstein/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 20:35:53 +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>Plywood Flying from Pickup Truck is ‘Auto Accident’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/05/plywood-flying-from-pickup-truck-is-auto-accident/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/05/plywood-flying-from-pickup-truck-is-auto-accident/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:49:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Clifford R. Weckstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roanoke Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73619</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Roanoke City Circuit Court says two employees of a remodeling company were “using” a pickup truck under Virginia law when they loaded a piece of plywood into the truck bed, and auto liability policies of the truck owner and its driver provide coverage for injuries suffered by a pedestrian who was struck by the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/05/plywood-flying-from-pickup-truck-is-auto-accident/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sketch Decree Inconsistent with Post-Nup&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/sketch-decree-inconsistent-with-post-nup/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/sketch-decree-inconsistent-with-post-nup/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:49:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Clifford R. Weckstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roanoke County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72811</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Roanoke County Circuit Court declines to enter a proposed divorce decree that is inconsistent with the parties’ post-nuptial agreement, with regard to child support. The proposed decree says the parties understand that support of the infant child is a right of the child and not of the parties and either party file petition for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/sketch-decree-inconsistent-with-post-nup/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Parties Should Discuss Discovery Issues&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/parties-should-discuss-discovery-issues/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/parties-should-discuss-discovery-issues/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:56:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Clifford R. Weckstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salem Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72789</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this long-running contract dispute between a homeowner and a home builder, a Salem Circuit Court denies a motion to reconsider and motions to compel and admonishes the lawyers that “ad hominem attacks, bitterness and biting sarcasm upon or about opposing counsel” are not consistent with the standards of professionalism endorsed by the Supreme Court [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/parties-should-discuss-discovery-issues/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IAD Does Not Cover Probation Violations&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/10/iad-does-not-cover-probation-violations/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/10/iad-does-not-cover-probation-violations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:04:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Clifford R. Weckstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roanoke Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68940</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Roanoke City Circuit Court denies a federal prisoner’s motion to dismiss state detainers filed on underlying charges of probation violation, as the Interstate Agreement on Detainers does not apply to probation violation proceedings. Under Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, a prisoner incarcerated in one state has the right to demand the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/10/iad-does-not-cover-probation-violations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Claim for Fraudulent Inducement&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/no-claim-for-fraudulent-inducement/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/no-claim-for-fraudulent-inducement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 13:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Clifford R. Weckstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roanoke Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/no-claim-for-fraudulent-inducement/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Roanoke City Circuit Court sustains demurrers to plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleging fraud in the inducement and seeking to pierce the corporate veil in negotiation of a loan agreement. The question remains what it has been: Has plaintiff stated facts sufficient to demonstrate that the Executive defendants owed it a common law duty that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/no-claim-for-fraudulent-inducement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Comp Lien on Med-Mal Award&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/10/21/no-comp-lien-on-med-mal-award-2/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/10/21/no-comp-lien-on-med-mal-award-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:59:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Clifford R. Weckstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roanoke Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers’ Comp]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/10/21/no-comp-lien-on-med-mal-award-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An employee who collected workers’ comp for a broken leg, and then won a $988,500 jury award for his treating physician’s medical malpractice leading to lung damage from a pulmonary embolism, does not have to pay the employer $22,945.77 on its workers’ comp lien filed in the med-mal suit, says a Roanoke City Circuit Court. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/10/21/no-comp-lien-on-med-mal-award-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No comp lien on med-mal award&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/10/20/no-comp-lien-on-med-mal-award/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/10/20/no-comp-lien-on-med-mal-award/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:40:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Clifford R. Weckstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roanoke Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers' Comp]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/10/20/no-comp-lien-on-med-mal-award/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An employer who paid for treatment of an employee’s broken leg cannot collect on a workers’ comp lien on the nearly $1 million medical malpractice award the employee later won from a Roanoke jury. Michael W. Thompson broke his right leg on the job at Bentech Manufacturing in Roanoke. In 2003, he sought workers’ compensation [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/10/20/no-comp-lien-on-med-mal-award/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Venue Motion Needed for Amended Complaint&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/09/23/new-venue-motion-needed-for-amended-complaint/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/09/23/new-venue-motion-needed-for-amended-complaint/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:59:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Clifford R. Weckstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roanoke Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/09/23/new-venue-motion-needed-for-amended-complaint/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defendants who moved for a change of venue in response to an original complaint, but who failed to object to venue when they filed responsive pleadings to plaintiff’s amended complaint that added more plaintiffs, have waived their right to seek a change of venue, says a Roanoke City Circuit Court. Plaintiff Argos Utilities, a Delaware [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/09/23/new-venue-motion-needed-for-amended-complaint/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Absolute Immunity for Water Authority&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/08/02/no-absolute-immunity-for-water-authority/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/08/02/no-absolute-immunity-for-water-authority/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 19:16:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Clifford R. Weckstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roanoke Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/08/02/no-absolute-immunity-for-water-authority/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defendant Western Virginia Water Authority is a municipal corporation with no absolute sovereign immunity, and a landowner may sue the Authority for damages allegedly caused by the Authority’s negligent maintenance and operation of a sanitary sewer line; although the Roanoke City Circuit previously held that a water authority created by the county and city has [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/08/02/no-absolute-immunity-for-water-authority/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeal of JDR Show Cause Order Dismissed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/07/06/appeal-of-jdr-show-cause-order-dismissed/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/07/06/appeal-of-jdr-show-cause-order-dismissed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Clifford R. Weckstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roanoke Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/07/06/appeal-of-jdr-show-cause-order-dismissed/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Roanoke City Circuit Court dismisses an appeal from a juvenile and domestic relations court order finding defendant “not guilty” on a Show Cause Summons (Criminal) , as the appeal is barred by the double jeopardy provisions of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Virginia Constitution. On [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/07/06/appeal-of-jdr-show-cause-order-dismissed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
