<?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 David J. Novak</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-david-j-novak/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>Plaintiff Invited ‘Missing Witness’ Instruction&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/plaintiff-invited-missing-witness-instruction/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/plaintiff-invited-missing-witness-instruction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:44:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge David J. Novak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72602</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In plaintiff motorcyclist’s unsuccessful personal injury suit against a truck driver, the trial court did not err in giving a “missing witness” instruction when plaintiff failed to appear at trial after having been named on the witness list, and the magistrate judge for the Richmond U.S. District Court denies plaintiff’s Rule 59 motion for a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/plaintiff-invited-missing-witness-instruction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Vehicle Swerve Supported Stop for Texting&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/vehicle-swerve-supported-stop-for-texting/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/vehicle-swerve-supported-stop-for-texting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:04:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge David J. Novak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Traffic Offenses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72350</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A police officer’s belief that defendant was texting while driving, a secondary offense in Virginia, did not prevent the officer from stopping defendant after he swerved toward the officer’s car in the adjacent lane, which provided cause to stop for reckless driving; the stop was legal and the Richmond U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge denies [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/vehicle-swerve-supported-stop-for-texting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Claim from Emergency Custody Order&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/07/no-claim-from-emergency-custody-order/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/07/no-claim-from-emergency-custody-order/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:24:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge David J. Novak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71744</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff who was taken into custody and subjected to a mental health evaluation Emergency Custody Order (ECO) issued by a magistrate on the sworn testimony of plaintiff’s wife, cannot sue defendants, the officers who took him into custody and the professional who conducted the mental health evaluation, for violation of his constitutional rights; the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/07/no-claim-from-emergency-custody-order/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joint Venture ‘Fraud’ Claim Dismissed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/15/joint-venture-fraud-claim-dismissed/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/15/joint-venture-fraud-claim-dismissed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:59:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge David J. Novak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert E. Payne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A company that consulted on regulatory compliance for the pharmaceutical industry that had a joint venture with a software company to develop and market compliance software can sue the software company for a declaratory judgment that it’s part-owner of the copyright for the software that was developed and for breach of contract, but the Richmond [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/15/joint-venture-fraud-claim-dismissed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inventor keeps rights under form contract&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/24/inventor-kept-rights-under-form-contract/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/24/inventor-kept-rights-under-form-contract/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:45:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge David J. Novak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Dennis Dohnal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69174</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A high-flying business deal to give airplane passengers in-flight Internet has crash-landed, winding up in Richmond federal court. It’s an oft-told tale, the court said: A business deal, all “optimism and cooperation” at the outset, is soured by funding problems and dissolves into litigation. This deal was a joint venture between inventor Michael Leabman and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/24/inventor-kept-rights-under-form-contract/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jurisdiction Approved in Veil-Piercing Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/22/jurisdiction-approved-in-veil-piercing-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/22/jurisdiction-approved-in-veil-piercing-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge David J. Novak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert E. Payne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Richmond U.S. District Court accepts the magistrate judge’s recommendation and refuses to dismiss this contract action seeking to pierce the corporate veil of defendant affiliated companies, who allegedly purchased and shared plaintiff’s software licenses. Plaintiff Brainware Inc. sued defendant Scan-Optics Ltd. alleging breach of contract through failure to make payments in a series of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/22/jurisdiction-approved-in-veil-piercing-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Excavation Company Can Sue Over Cable Damage&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/05/excavation-company-can-sue-over-cable-damage/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/05/excavation-company-can-sue-over-cable-damage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:16:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge David J. Novak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Richmond U.S. District Court magistrate judge says an excavation company that damaged plaintiff Level 3 Communications’ fiber optic cables may bring a third-party action for breach of contract, equitable indemnity and contribution against Accumark Inc., who allegedly incorrectly identified the location and depth of the cables. In Virginia, if a defendant is guilty of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/05/excavation-company-can-sue-over-cable-damage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Texas Company Faces Va. Suit Over Boiler&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/20/texas-company-faces-va-suit-over-boiler/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/20/texas-company-faces-va-suit-over-boiler/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:01:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge David J. Novak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=67887</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Richmond U.S. District Court has personal jurisdiction over a Texas engineering company that has had multiple contracts with a Virginia manufacturer for the sale of custom boilers, and the Texas company must defend the manufacturer’s contract claim for an unpaid bill of nearly $100,000; the defendant purposefully availed itself of the Virginia legal system [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/20/texas-company-faces-va-suit-over-boiler/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Consumer Claims on Ford Truck&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/17/no-consumer-claims-on-ford-truck/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/17/no-consumer-claims-on-ford-truck/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge David J. Novak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/17/no-consumer-claims-on-ford-truck/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A consumer’s Ford 650 Series truck that has suffered mechanical malfunctions is not a “consumer product” under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or a “motor vehicle” under the Virginia Lemon Law, and a Richmond U.S. District Court magistrate judge awards summary judgment to defendant Ford Motor Company. Plaintiff Terry Eversole bought a new 2008 Ford F650 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/17/no-consumer-claims-on-ford-truck/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michigan Debt Suit Prompts FDCPA Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/28/michigan-debt-suit-prompts-fdcpa-claim-2/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/28/michigan-debt-suit-prompts-fdcpa-claim-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:29:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge David J. Novak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/28/michigan-debt-suit-prompts-fdcpa-claim-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Michigan collections company and a Michigan law firm that sued a Virginia resident in Michigan to collect on a credit card debt for jewelry purchased in Virginia, and served process on debtor in Virginia, can be sued in Virginia federal court on debtor’s claim the law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/28/michigan-debt-suit-prompts-fdcpa-claim-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
