<?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 Edward W. Hanson Jr.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-edward-w-hanson-jr/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>Buyer Wins Specific Performance, Can Close Now&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/buyer-wins-specific-performance-can-close-now/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/buyer-wins-specific-performance-can-close-now/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:51:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Edward W. Hanson Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Beach Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72018</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As the defendant has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff real estate buyer failed to cancel, rescind or otherwise repudiate the purchase contract, the Virginia Beach Circuit Court grants judgment for plaintiff and orders specific performance of the contract. The main defense of defendant seller is that the buyer cancelled [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/buyer-wins-specific-performance-can-close-now/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Email was ‘disgusting’ but was not ‘obscene’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/15/email-was-disgusting-but-was-not-obscene/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/15/email-was-disgusting-but-was-not-obscene/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:54:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Edward W. Hanson Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Charles S. Russell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Donald W. Lemons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice LeRoy F. Millette Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=67804</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An angry doctor’s “disgusting” emails to his ex-wife were not “obscene” under a Virginia criminal law and his conviction for harassment by computer has been overturned by the Supreme Court of Virginia. Where a Court of Appeals majority rejected a narrow interpretation of “obscenity” and embraced instead a broader dictionary definition, the Supreme Court insisted [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/15/email-was-disgusting-but-was-not-obscene/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plastic surgery patient dies from aspiration pneumonia &#8211; $1,950,000 Verdict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/09/20/plastic-surgery-patient-dies-from-aspiration-pneumonia-1950000-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/09/20/plastic-surgery-patient-dies-from-aspiration-pneumonia-1950000-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Edward W. Hanson Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Million-Dollar Verdicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Beach Circuit Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=57196</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case involved the death of a 36-year-old mother of four after elective, cosmetic plastic surgery, which comprised breast augmentation and mastopexy, abdominoplasty and liposuction, with five hours of general anesthesia in an outpatient setting. Plaintiff contended that the defendants failed to adequately monitor the patient post-operatively and discharged her prematurely despite reported breathing difficulties. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/09/20/plastic-surgery-patient-dies-from-aspiration-pneumonia-1950000-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insurance &#8211; Policy Coverage &#8211; Excess Liability &#8211; UIM &#8211; Employer Policy&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/09/14/insurance-policy-coverage-excess-liability-uim-employer-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/09/14/insurance-policy-coverage-excess-liability-uim-employer-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:42:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Edward W. Hanson Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Beach Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=57133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this dec action, a Virginia Beach Circuit Court says defendant employee is not entitled to UIM coverage under his employer’s commercial general liability and commercial property policy for the balance of a judgment the employee won after an accident in his personal vehicle while on company business. Plaintiff carrier, GuideOne Mutual, issued a commercial [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/09/14/insurance-policy-coverage-excess-liability-uim-employer-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
