<?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 James C. Cacheris</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-james-c-cacheris/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 20:24:01 +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>Complaint Sufficient to Seize Cash&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/complaint-sufficient-to-seize-cash/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/complaint-sufficient-to-seize-cash/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 13:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Cacheris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this civil forfeiture action involving $17,550 seized by Fairfax County police officers from claimant’s vehicle during a traffic stop, the Alexandria U.S. District Court denies claimant’s motion to dismiss the action because the government’s complaint supports the initial seizure of the cash. The court finds the government has stated facts sufficient to support a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/complaint-sufficient-to-seize-cash/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Post-Discovery Complaint Amendment Allowed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/post-discovery-complaint-amendment-allowed/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/post-discovery-complaint-amendment-allowed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 16:53:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Cacheris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an investor’s suit alleging defendant technology company and its founder committed securities fraud, an Alexandria U.S. District Court overrules defendants’ objections and accepts the magistrate judge’s recommendation to allow plaintiff to file a second amended complaint and motion to compel. In his first amended complaint, plaintiff alleged defendants committed securities fraud by selling plaintiff [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/post-discovery-complaint-amendment-allowed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Borrower’s Fraud &amp; Conspiracy Claims Dismissed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/borrowers-fraud-conspiracy-claims-dismissed/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/borrowers-fraud-conspiracy-claims-dismissed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:24:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Cacheris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74002</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff who has defaulted on a $650,000 mortgage loan on his Fredericksburg property has his suit alleging fraud dismissed by the Alexandria U.S. District Court for lack of sufficient detail about time, place or content of any alleged fraudulent misrepresentations by defendants. To the extent plaintiff’s complaint is littered with bold assertions of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/borrowers-fraud-conspiracy-claims-dismissed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Email Not Enough to Prove Contract&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/email-not-enough-to-prove-contract/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/email-not-enough-to-prove-contract/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:23:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Cacheris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74000</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although the parties continued to negotiate terms for defendant’s promotion of a concert featuring plaintiff Wiz Khalifa at George Mason University, with defendant holding out for plaintiff to release a new album, an email from plaintiff’s agent to defendant indicated the parties would wait until formal execution of the attached contract, and the Alexandria U.S. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/email-not-enough-to-prove-contract/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arbitration Required for Security Contractor Claims&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/arbitration-required-for-security-contractor-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/arbitration-required-for-security-contractor-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:53:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Cacheris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73907</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria U.S. District Court grants defendant government security contractor’s motion to compel arbitration of three employees’ claims that they were not paid for all the hours they worked and not paid proper pay rates; although only defendant may force arbitration, the agreement is not unconscionable and the agreement as a whole is supported by [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/arbitration-required-for-security-contractor-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Teaming Agreement Not Final &amp; Enforceable&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/teaming-agreement-not-final-enforceable/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/teaming-agreement-not-final-enforceable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Cacheris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73903</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this suit alleging defendant breached a teaming agreement with plaintiff to win a federal contract award, an Alexandria U.S. District Court grants summary judgment to defendant, concluding that the parties’ teaming agreement was not meant to provide a binding obligation but rather to set forth a contractual objective and agreed framework for the negotiations [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/teaming-agreement-not-final-enforceable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘European’ is Protected National Origin, But Suit Fails&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/european-is-protected-national-origin-but-suit-fails/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/european-is-protected-national-origin-but-suit-fails/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:59:57 +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 James C. Cacheris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73490</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria U.S. District Court says “European” is a protected “national origin” classification under Title VII, but nevertheless grants summary judgment to a Northern Virginia community college sued by a former adjunct economics professor who says he suffered illegal discrimination when he was denied permanent appointment. Plaintiff has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/european-is-protected-national-origin-but-suit-fails/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Teacher Can’t Suppress Child Pornography Statements&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/teacher-cant-suppress-child-pornography-statements/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/teacher-cant-suppress-child-pornography-statements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:43:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Cacheris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Alexandria U.S. District Court denies a graduate teaching student’s motion to suppress statements made to federal investigators in two interviews four hours apart, the second after a computer forensic review and signed waiver of Miranda rights; although federal agents initially entered with weapons drawn, the first interview at defendant’s residence was not custodial considering [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/teacher-cant-suppress-child-pornography-statements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Willfulness’ Standard Disputed in Campaign Donation Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/willfulness-standard-disputed-in-campaign-donation-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/willfulness-standard-disputed-in-campaign-donation-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:13:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Cacheris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72837</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In defendants’ prosecution for illegally soliciting and reimbursing contributions from their employees to Hillary Clinton’s political campaigns, the Alexandria U.S. District Court denies a defendant’s motion to reconsider the meaning of the “willfulness” element of the charged campaign finance violations. Defendant argues that, contrary to the court’s conclusion, campaign finance laws are complex and the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/willfulness-standard-disputed-in-campaign-donation-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Franchisor Wins Case on Discovery Admissions&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/franchisor-wins-case-on-discovery-admissions/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/franchisor-wins-case-on-discovery-admissions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:52:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Cacheris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72523</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An auto service center franchisor wins summary judgment in Alexandria U.S. District Court on its contract claim against a defendant who failed to pay the advertising expenses or operational fee under the franchise agreement and failed to properly transfer assets; the court says defendant has not met the test under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/franchisor-wins-case-on-discovery-admissions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
