<?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 Dennis Dohnal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-dennis-dohnal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:27:20 +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>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>Default Set Aside, Despite Counsel’s Confusion&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/17/default-set-aside-despite-counsel%e2%80%99s-confusion/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/17/default-set-aside-despite-counsel%e2%80%99s-confusion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Dennis Dohnal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert E. Payne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/17/default-set-aside-despite-counsel%e2%80%99s-confusion/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In plaintiff sales executive’s contract action against his former employer, the Richmond U.S. District Court accepts the magistrate judge’s recommendations to seal documents filed by plaintiff and redact proprietary and confidential information, and to vacate the default judgment against defendant company, even though the company’s “outside” counsel was confused about proper service of process. Plaintiff [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/17/default-set-aside-despite-counsel%e2%80%99s-confusion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fees Awarded in Retaliation Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/03/fees-awarded-in-retaliation-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/03/fees-awarded-in-retaliation-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:37:21 +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 Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Dennis Dohnal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/03/fees-awarded-in-retaliation-case/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An African-American boat painter who won his retaliation claim against a boatyard owner who shared with another local boatyard that the painter had filed an EEOC charge after he was terminated, now wins attorney’s fees as the Richmond U.S. District Court magistrate judge awards plaintiff $3,825 in fees. Plaintiff moved for an additional award of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/03/fees-awarded-in-retaliation-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unsigned Cancellation Effective When Mailed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/02/13/unsigned-cancellation-effective-when-mailed/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/02/13/unsigned-cancellation-effective-when-mailed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:39:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Dennis Dohnal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/02/13/unsigned-cancellation-effective-when-mailed/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hearing the matter by consent of the parties under 28 USC§636(c)(1), the Richmond U.S. District Court magistrate judge grants summary judgment for a life insurer that mailed unsigned notices according to the policy terms cancelling a “key man” insurance policy for nonpayment of premium. Insured business maintained a “key man” life insurance policy on an [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/02/13/unsigned-cancellation-effective-when-mailed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recalcitrant Pro Se Party Sanctioned&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/02/13/recalcitrant-pro-se-party-sanctioned/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/02/13/recalcitrant-pro-se-party-sanctioned/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:33:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Dennis Dohnal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/02/13/recalcitrant-pro-se-party-sanctioned/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As a sanction under Rules 37 and 41 for continued noncompliance with its discovery orders, the Richmond U.S. District Court magistrate judge recommends dismissal of a pro se employment discrimination suit and directs employer’s counsel to file a motion under Rule 54(d)(2) detailing attorney’s fees arising from plaintiff’s misconduct. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges claims under Title [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/02/13/recalcitrant-pro-se-party-sanctioned/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Service OK Despite ‘Technical’ Error&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/25/service-ok-despite-%e2%80%98technical%e2%80%99-error/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/25/service-ok-despite-%e2%80%98technical%e2%80%99-error/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:34:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Dennis Dohnal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/25/service-ok-despite-%e2%80%98technical%e2%80%99-error/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although the address used for service of process on defendant in this auto-accident case was for “Blue Sky Road, instead of Blue Sky Drive, the mere technical error had no impact on effective service of process, with the result that defendant’s removal to federal court was untimely; a Richmond U.S. District Court grants plaintiff’s motion [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/25/service-ok-despite-%e2%80%98technical%e2%80%99-error/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Privity for Title Search Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/10/no-privity-for-title-search-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/10/no-privity-for-title-search-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:46:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Dennis Dohnal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert E. Payne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/10/no-privity-for-title-search-claim/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Richmond U.S. District Court accepts a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny remand of this suit for contract damages for an alleged defective title search, as plaintiff has not demonstrated the suit is for less than the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000, and the court grants defendant’s converted motion for summary judgment. This matter arises from [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/10/no-privity-for-title-search-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rule 11 Threats Led to Higher Fees&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/10/rule-11-threats-led-to-higher-fees/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/10/rule-11-threats-led-to-higher-fees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:41:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Dennis Dohnal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/10/rule-11-threats-led-to-higher-fees/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this suit in which an African-American boat painter won damages for retaliation by a boatyard owner who shared with other area boatyard owners the painter’s EEOC charge, filed after the painter’s termination, the Richmond U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge who tried the case awards plaintiff attorney’s fees of $59,116.67 and costs of $3,322.59. Earlier [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/10/rule-11-threats-led-to-higher-fees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sanctions threat means a bigger fee&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/06/sanctions-threat-means-a-bigger-fee/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/06/sanctions-threat-means-a-bigger-fee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:43:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Dennis Dohnal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sanctions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/06/sanctions-threat-means-a-bigger-fee/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An employment lawyer’s persistent threats to seek Rule 11 sanctions against opposing counsel backfired when the lawyer lost the case and had to pay extra attorney’s fees. The judge who awarded fees to the winning Title VII plaintiff said his lawyer had to spend extra time and enlist another lawyer’s help to respond to the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/06/sanctions-threat-means-a-bigger-fee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Highway inspector struck by motorist on I-295 &#8211; $1,700,000 Settlement&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/12/26/highway-inspector-struck-by-motorist-on-i-295-1700000-settlement/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/12/26/highway-inspector-struck-by-motorist-on-i-295-1700000-settlement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2011 11:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Dennis Dohnal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Million-Dollar Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/12/26/highway-inspector-struck-by-motorist-on-i-295-1700000-settlement/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff was a 41-year-old divorced man who worked as a highway construction inspector. Near midnight on July 1, 2010, the plaintiff positioned his work truck, a leased vehicle, in the safety zone of a VDOT work site on Interstate 295 in Henrico County. His truck was specially equipped with an amber flashing light, other lights [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/12/26/highway-inspector-struck-by-motorist-on-i-295-1700000-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
