<?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 V. Lane</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-james-v-lane/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 14:44:47 +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>Plaintiff’s Recorded Statement Admissible&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/plaintiff%e2%80%99s-recorded-statement-admissible/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/plaintiff%e2%80%99s-recorded-statement-admissible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 13:52:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James V. Lane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rockingham County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/plaintiff%e2%80%99s-recorded-statement-admissible/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff in an auto-accident personal injury case may not exclude a recorded statement she made pertaining to the parties’ auto accident, which was reproduced in a transcript, but the Rockingham County Circuit Court says plaintiff may object during trial should the statement be used for an improper purpose under Va. Code § 8.01-404. Code [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/plaintiff%e2%80%99s-recorded-statement-admissible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ad damnum, defamation cases settled while on appeal&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/01/07/ad-damnum-defamation-cases-settled-while-on-appeal/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/01/07/ad-damnum-defamation-cases-settled-while-on-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 11:51:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Cooper</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James H. Chamblin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James V. Lane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert E. Payne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge William N. Alexander II]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=59344</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don’t look for rulings from the Supreme Court of Virginia in the Spear ad damnum case or the much-litigated defamation claim of a former Raytheon Technical Services Co. executive. Both have been settled under confidential terms, less than two weeks before a decision was due in the Raytheon case next Thursday and less than a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/01/07/ad-damnum-defamation-cases-settled-while-on-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Experts agree on need for surgery for injury from low-impact crash &#8211; $350,000 Settlement&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/08/30/experts-agree-on-need-for-surgery-for-injury-from-low-impact-crash-350000-settlement/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/08/30/experts-agree-on-need-for-surgery-for-injury-from-low-impact-crash-350000-settlement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:42:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James V. Lane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rockingham County Circuit Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=56710</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff, a 42-year-old male, was on his way to a doctor’s appointment for chronic low back pain when he was rear-ended by the defendant. Defendant was employed by Donegal Mutual Insurance Company and was driving a company car on her way to meet a fellow employee. The parties disputed the force of the impact. There [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/08/30/experts-agree-on-need-for-surgery-for-injury-from-low-impact-crash-350000-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another circuit judge rejects ‘Spear’ rationale&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/05/10/another-circuit-judge-rejects-%e2%80%98spear%e2%80%99-rationale/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/05/10/another-circuit-judge-rejects-%e2%80%98spear%e2%80%99-rationale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 20:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News In Brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James V. Lane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert E. Payne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge William N. Alexander II]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=54877</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Denounced by plaintiffs’ lawyers, the groundbreaking decision in Spear v. Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority has found few friends in the Virginia judiciary. The latest judge to reject the “once-and-for-all ad damnum” rule of Spear is Franklin County Circuit Judge William Alexander. Roanoke lawyer Pete Katt reports Alexander last week rejected a defense motion to dismiss [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/05/10/another-circuit-judge-rejects-%e2%80%98spear%e2%80%99-rationale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Municipal &#8211; Procurement Act &#8211; Bid Protest &#8211; No Contract Award&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/04/12/municipal-procurement-act-bid-protest-no-contract-award/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/04/12/municipal-procurement-act-bid-protest-no-contract-award/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:40:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James V. Lane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rockingham County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=52873</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An excavation company cannot use either the Virginia Public Procurement Act or defendant city’s own purchasing manual to establish the court’s jurisdiction for its challenge to the city’s decision not to award a contract on a particular project, and the Rockingham County Circuit Court sustains the city’s demurrer. Virginia Code § 2.2-4360 sets forth the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/04/12/municipal-procurement-act-bid-protest-no-contract-award/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plaintiffs want to be able to sue for more when refiling after nonsuit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/01/25/plaintiffs-want-to-able-to-sue-for-more-when-refiling-after-nonsuit/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/01/25/plaintiffs-want-to-able-to-sue-for-more-when-refiling-after-nonsuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:19:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James V. Lane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Loudoun County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=51259</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When a Loudoun County Circuit Court dismissed a p.i. suit in August because the plaintiff asked for more money when she refiled after a nonsuit, plaintiffs’ lawyers went on alert. The Loudoun County case, Spear v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, prompted a spate of Spear-based defense motions. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are trying to lock down what [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/01/25/plaintiffs-want-to-able-to-sue-for-more-when-refiling-after-nonsuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Civil Procedure &#8211; Nonsuit &#8211; Same ‘Action’ &#8211; Ad Damnum&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/01/18/civil-procedure-nonsuit-same-%e2%80%98action%e2%80%99-ad-damnum/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/01/18/civil-procedure-nonsuit-same-%e2%80%98action%e2%80%99-ad-damnum/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:38:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James V. Lane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rockingham County Circuit Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=51274</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although a car-crash plaintiff changed her damages request when she refiled after a nonsuit &#8211; from $250,000 compensatory and $350,000 punitive damages to $300,000 compensatory and no punitive damages &#8211; her second lawsuit is the same “action” and is timely under the savings provision of Va. Code § 8.01-229(E)(3), a Rockingham County Circuit Court holds. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/01/18/civil-procedure-nonsuit-same-%e2%80%98action%e2%80%99-ad-damnum/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>P.i. plaintiffs post win on nonsuit issue&#160;&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/01/14/pi-plaintiffs-post-win-on-nonsuit-issue/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/01/14/pi-plaintiffs-post-win-on-nonsuit-issue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:46:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James H. Chamblin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James V. Lane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Loudoun County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rockingham County Circuit Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=50482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The latest battle over nonsuit rights may be heating up across Virginia. A new circuit court case clearly rejects a controversial decision last summer that dismissed a p.i. suit because it was refiled with an increased ad damnum. Last August, a Loudoun County judge dismissed with prejudice a suit refiled after nonsuit because the p.i. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/01/14/pi-plaintiffs-post-win-on-nonsuit-issue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
