<?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 J. Harvie Wilkinson III</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-j-harvie-wilkinson-iii/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>Case Stayed After ‘Procedural Gamesmanship’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/29/case-stayed-after-procedural-gamesmanship/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/29/case-stayed-after-procedural-gamesmanship/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2013 16:16:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74625</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this dispute over a ski towns association’s use of software to track vacation rentals of private homes to ensure tax compliance, a Virginia federal court did not err in staying suit filed in that court by the software licensor in response to a Texas state court suit filed by a private vacation-rental website; the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/29/case-stayed-after-procedural-gamesmanship/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeal Dismissed in Medicaid Cutback Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/appeal-dismissed-in-medicaid-cutback-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/appeal-dismissed-in-medicaid-cutback-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74327</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this case involving a cutback in Medicaid services to a class of North Carolina recipients with severe developmental disabilities, the 4th Circuit dismisses an appeal of a preliminary injunction ordering the state Medicaid agency not to reduce services without a hearing; the state agency that administers the Medicaid program has not joined in this [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/appeal-dismissed-in-medicaid-cutback-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Exhausted’ Litigant Exhausted His FOIA Remedy&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/07/exhausted-litigant-exhausted-his-foia-remedy/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/07/exhausted-litigant-exhausted-his-foia-remedy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 14:58:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74194</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Despite a statutory mandate requiring federal agencies to respond to FOIA requests and appeals within 20 working days, defendant Drug Enforcement Administration ultimately took two and one-half years to respond to plaintiff’s request for documents concerning the federal government’s regulation of the drug carisoprodol, and the 4th Circuit says the exhausted plaintiff has exhausted his [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/07/exhausted-litigant-exhausted-his-foia-remedy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>HOA Wins Challenge to Exclusive Cable Contract&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/hoa-wins-challenge-to-exclusive-cable-contract/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/hoa-wins-challenge-to-exclusive-cable-contract/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:21:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73682</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A cable provider’s exclusive contract to provide cable services to a real estate development violated an FCC order that prohibited such exclusivity arrangements, and the 4th Circuit affirms judgment for the homeowners’ association that successfully challenged the contract. Codified at 47 C.F.R. § 76.2000(a), the Federal Communications Commission’s Exclusivity Order states that no cable operator [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/hoa-wins-challenge-to-exclusive-cable-contract/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Union Member’s Complaint Not ‘Free Speech’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/29/union-members-complaint-not-free-speech/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/29/union-members-complaint-not-free-speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:40:49 +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[Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73464</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A union member who alleged she was fired in retaliation for reporting to the regional union that she had seen the union local’s president and vice president viewing pornography on a union computer does not have a claim for violation of her free-speech rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act; the 4th Circuit says [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/29/union-members-complaint-not-free-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Investors Not ‘Customers’ for FINRA Arbitration&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/investors-not-customers-for-finra-arbitration/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/investors-not-customers-for-finra-arbitration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:51:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73177</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Investors who purchased allegedly fraudulent securities directly from a business on the recommendation of a lawyer who was working with a broker for a financial services company were not “customers” of the company entitled to FINRA arbitration; the 4th Circuit says that to compel arbitration in this case, in which the investors did not buy [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/investors-not-customers-for-finra-arbitration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Death Penalty Upheld in Murder-for-Hire Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/death-penalty-upheld-in-murder-for-hire-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/death-penalty-upheld-in-murder-for-hire-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:57:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72902</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 4th Circuit upholds defendant’s conviction and capital sentence for conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire, based on his fatal shooting of a Naval officer in 2007 as a contract killing arranged by the officer’s wife and her paramour; however, the panel splits on whether it was error for the trial judge to admit an interrogation videotape [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/death-penalty-upheld-in-murder-for-hire-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Intervention in AG’s Defense of Abortion Statute&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/no-intervention-in-ags-defense-of-abortion-statute/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/no-intervention-in-ags-defense-of-abortion-statute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:27:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72300</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this suit challenging the constitutionality of the North Carolina “Woman’s Right to Know Act,” which requires certain informed consent procedures prior to performance of an abortion, the federal district court did not err in denying a motion to intervene filed by a coalition of pro-life medical professionals, women who have previously undergone abortions and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/no-intervention-in-ags-defense-of-abortion-statute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Victim Statement Comes in Under ‘Forfeiture’ Rule&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/23/victim-statement-comes-in-under-forfeiture-rule/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/23/victim-statement-comes-in-under-forfeiture-rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:43:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 4th Circuit joins other courts and extends the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” exception to admission of a hearsay statement to include a statement made by the murder victim in this case, even though defendant did not commit the murder solely in order to prevent the witness from testifying. Defendant’s coconspirator shot at the victim, at [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/23/victim-statement-comes-in-under-forfeiture-rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stop of Trespass Suspect Was Legal&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/23/stop-of-trespass-suspect-was-legal/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/23/stop-of-trespass-suspect-was-legal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:42:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search & Seizure]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A police officer was justified in stopping defendant as he walked away from a convenience store parking lot, based on the store owner’s written request for enforcement of trespass laws in this high-crime area and defendant quickly walking away when the officer spoke, and the 4th Circuit upholds the stop and defendant’s conviction as a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/23/stop-of-trespass-suspect-was-legal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
