<?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. Turk</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-james-c-turk/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 18:49:57 +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>Stay Ordered in Contaminated Steroid Cases&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/stay-ordered-in-contaminated-steroid-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/stay-ordered-in-contaminated-steroid-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 15:10:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Turk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Products Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74518</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In these nearly identical suits alleging injury from contaminated steroids manufactured by defendant New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc., the Roanoke U.S. District Court will stay plaintiffs’ motions to remand these matters to state court until the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decides whether to transfer these actions. Soon after these suits were filed, defendant NECC [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/stay-ordered-in-contaminated-steroid-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Black Ice’ Slip &amp; Fall Goes to Jury&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/black-ice-slip-fall-goes-to-jury/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/black-ice-slip-fall-goes-to-jury/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:30:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Turk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Food Lion customer who slipped on black ice near the store entrance after a store manager allegedly had observed icy spots in the parking lot several hours earlier may take her slip-and-fall case to the jury, as a Roanoke U.S. District Court says the store and its snow-removal contractor have failed to show an [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/black-ice-slip-fall-goes-to-jury/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Warranty Disclaimer Inadequate for RV Buyer&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/warranty-disclaimer-inadequate-for-rv-buyer/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/warranty-disclaimer-inadequate-for-rv-buyer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:34:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Turk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73913</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A buyer who spent nearly $200,000 on an RV motor coach and is unhappy with repeated efforts to repair multiple alleged defects may sue the seller Camping World for breach of implied warranties, as the Roanoke U.S. District Court finds the dealer’s disclaimer clause inadequate under the Virginia UCC. Defendant Camping World did not offer [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/warranty-disclaimer-inadequate-for-rv-buyer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sub Has Claim for Excess ‘Retainage’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/29/sub-has-claim-for-excess-retainage/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/29/sub-has-claim-for-excess-retainage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:50:53 +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. Turk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73472</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this contract dispute in which a masonry subcontractor alleges a general contractor unlawfully retained 10 percent of the required progress payments, a Roanoke U.S. District Court will not imply a cause of action for the subcontractor based on a Virginia statute that limits lawful retainage to 5 percent, but the court says the sub [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/29/sub-has-claim-for-excess-retainage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prison Beard Policy Challenged Under RLUIPA&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/prison-beard-policy-challenged-under-rluipa/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/prison-beard-policy-challenged-under-rluipa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:39:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Turk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73312</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Virginia prisoner who complains that he has been required to follow a prison grooming policy of keeping his beard no longer than one-quarter inch in length, and that, as an “Orthodox White Sunni Muslim” who follows Sharia law, he has suffered discrimination, has stated a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized persons [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/prison-beard-policy-challenged-under-rluipa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Counterclaim Comes Too Late, Is Denied&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/counterclaim-comes-too-late-is-denied/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/counterclaim-comes-too-late-is-denied/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:34:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Turk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although the Roanoke U.S. District Court does not fault new counsel for the delay in proposing a counterclaim, it will deny its request to file a counterclaim seven months after it filed its Answer, as discovery is well underway and the counterclaim would change the character of the litigation. Whether the counterclaim should be allowed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/counterclaim-comes-too-late-is-denied/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fraud, Securities Claims All Stayed for Arbitration&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/fraud-securities-claims-all-stayed-for-arbitration/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/fraud-securities-claims-all-stayed-for-arbitration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:54:37 +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. Turk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although not all claims may be arbitrable in a retired physician’s suit arising from alleged fraudulent investment advice, the Roanoke U.S. District Court nevertheless will stay the entire lawsuit pending the outcome of FINRA arbitration with a co-defendant securities firm. Plaintiffs are a retired physician and an irrevocable trust by its trustee, the physician. This [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/fraud-securities-claims-all-stayed-for-arbitration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Economic Loss Rule No Bar to Fraud Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/economic-loss-rule-no-bar-to-fraud-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/economic-loss-rule-no-bar-to-fraud-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:40:30 +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. Turk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72538</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this dispute over defendants’ follow-through on multi-million dollar contracts to buy plaintiff’s coal, a Roanoke U.S. District Court says plaintiff’s claim for fraudulent inducement is not barred by the economic loss rule, and plaintiff may sue both defendant company and its owner. Plaintiff alleges defendant Ernie Thrasher, owner of defendant Xcoal Energy &#38; Resources, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/economic-loss-rule-no-bar-to-fraud-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Continuing Violation’ Saves Fair Housing Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/continuing-violation-saves-fair-housing-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/continuing-violation-saves-fair-housing-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:59:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Turk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72533</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff fair housing advocates have stated a timely claim against defendant design architect for two apartment complexes, based on a “continuing violation”; the Roanoke U.S. District Court says evidence tying the types of alleged violations at the two complexes and the timing of their design and construction are sufficient to allow a jury to conclude [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/continuing-violation-saves-fair-housing-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Extra Time for Service After Removal&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/extra-time-for-service-after-removal/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/extra-time-for-service-after-removal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:15:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Turk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72511</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Roanoke U.S. District Court quashes service of process in this slip-and-fall case, but says plaintiff may amend her complaint to correct defendant’s name, and she has additional time to serve her complaint because defendant removed the case from state to federal court. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges she fell and was injured on Dec. 29, 2009. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/extra-time-for-service-after-removal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
