<?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 Henry E. Hudson</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-henry-e-hudson/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:26:42 +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>Punitives Claim Survives for Tree-Cutting&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/06/11/punitives-claim-survives-for-tree-cutting/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/06/11/punitives-claim-survives-for-tree-cutting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:19:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry E. Hudson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74841</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A property owner who disputed the width of defendant natural gas company’s easement and refused to allow cutting of trees on the property to widen the easement may sue the company for trespass for coming onto the property and performing the work over their objections, and the Richmond U.S. District Court denies defendant’s motion to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/06/11/punitives-claim-survives-for-tree-cutting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Jurisdiction from Securities Counterclaims&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/no-jurisdiction-from-securities-counterclaims/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/no-jurisdiction-from-securities-counterclaims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:55:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry E. Hudson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74499</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff company’s suit against former employees and a competitor alleging conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets is remanded back to state court by the Richmond U.S. District Court; language in the two federal securities statutes cited in defendants’ counterclaims does not trump the well-pleaded complaint rule that requires the court to look only to plaintiff’s complaint [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/no-jurisdiction-from-securities-counterclaims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Policy Exclusion for ‘BUI’ Damage&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/policy-exclusion-for-bui-damage/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/policy-exclusion-for-bui-damage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 13:46:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry E. Hudson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74363</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An insurance company is not obligated to provide coverage to defendant yacht owner for damages after his boat collided with an anchored sailboat off the coast of Middlesex County and the owner was convicted of boating “under the influence.” The sailing vessel defendant owner struck, owned by Carol and Alan Herrie, sustained significant damage including [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/policy-exclusion-for-bui-damage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Bad faith’ prompts full fee award&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/03/bad-faith-prompts-full-fee-award/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/03/bad-faith-prompts-full-fee-award/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:32:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry E. Hudson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73554</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An ERISA plan administrator’s “disingenuous handling” of a death benefits claim has prompted a Richmond federal court to find bad faith and hit the administrator for the full amount of the claimant’s legal fees. Those fees covered two lawsuits that bracketed an administrative hearing and stretched for eight years after the death of Michael Bryner’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/03/bad-faith-prompts-full-fee-award/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patent Licensee Must Join Owners as Plaintiffs&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/patent-licensee-must-join-owners-as-plaintiffs/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/patent-licensee-must-join-owners-as-plaintiffs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:33:56 +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 Henry E. Hudson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73512</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff technology company does not have the necessary substantive right to the patents at issue to confer constitutional or statutory standing to prosecute this suit alleging infringement of two U.S. patents relating to computer-assisted mapping technologies licensed to plaintiffs, and the Richmond U.S. District Court says the case will be dismissed unless the patent owners [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/patent-licensee-must-join-owners-as-plaintiffs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Warning’ Stop OK for Texting Driver&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/28/warning-stop-ok-for-texting-driver/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/28/warning-stop-ok-for-texting-driver/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:20:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry E. Hudson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search & Seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73414</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A police officer could stop defendant and warn him against texting while driving, even if the officer could only issue a citation for the conduct as a secondary offense; it was reasonable to stop defendant for swerving into the officer’s lane of travel, and the Richmond U.S. District Court accepts the magistrate judge’s recommendation and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/28/warning-stop-ok-for-texting-driver/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Diversity Jurisdiction in Franchise Suit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/no-diversity-jurisdiction-in-franchise-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/no-diversity-jurisdiction-in-franchise-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:04:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry E. Hudson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73276</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this derivative action concerning a joint venture by two LLCs to franchise NASCAR-themed RV parks through a licensing agreement with NASCAR, a Richmond U.S. District Court remands the action to state court; regardless of how the parties are aligned, diversity jurisdiction does not exist in this case. The dispute between the parties focuses solely [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/no-diversity-jurisdiction-in-franchise-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CGL Excludes Performance Related Claims&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/cgl-excludes-performance-related-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/cgl-excludes-performance-related-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:25:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry E. Hudson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73099</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In homeowners’ action under the commercial general liability policy of a bankrupt construction contractor, the Richmond U.S. District Court grants insurer summary judgment: homeowners’ asserted grounds of relief—fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract—are all performance-related and expressly excluded under policy terms standard in the industry. Property owners contracted with construction contractor to repair flood damage [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/cgl-excludes-performance-related-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hostile Environment Allegations Insufficient&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/hostile-environment-allegations-insufficient/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/hostile-environment-allegations-insufficient/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:24:00 +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 Henry E. Hudson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73097</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Richmond U.S. District Court dismisses with prejudice a pro se Virginia State University (VSU) professor’s hostile work environment claim arising out the reduction of her 2007 annual salary offer from $72,500 to $65,000; her Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) claim is dismissed without prejudice; a state law breach of contract claim is dismissed with prejudice [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/hostile-environment-allegations-insufficient/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Allegations Insufficient on Race and Sex&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/allegations-insufficient-on-race-and-sex/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/allegations-insufficient-on-race-and-sex/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:20:30 +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 Henry E. Hudson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73093</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Richmond U.S. District Court dismisses pro se employee’s Title VII claims for race and sex discrimination and retaliation; employee fails to allege either discrimination or any adverse employment action; her complaints of conflicting instructions, close supervision, a late paycheck and an omitted performance evaluation are insufficient. Employee is an African-American female who has worked [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/allegations-insufficient-on-race-and-sex/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
