<?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 M. Hannah Lauck</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-m-hannah-lauck/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:10:30 +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>Former In-House May Have Bowman Comp Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/former-in-house-may-have-bowman-comp-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/former-in-house-may-have-bowman-comp-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:11:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge M. Hannah Lauck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73702</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although defendant employer says its former chief legal counsel’s Bowman claim based on successive salary reductions and failure to pay a severance package is barred because executives are not protected by the Virginia Wage and Payment Act, a Richmond U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge says plaintiff may file an amended complaint, as the court cannot [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/former-in-house-may-have-bowman-comp-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mortgage Company Wants to Enforce Repurchase Contract&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/mortgage-company-wants-to-enforce-repurchase-contract/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/mortgage-company-wants-to-enforce-repurchase-contract/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:03:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge M. Hannah Lauck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert E. Payne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72910</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On recommendation of the magistrate judge, a Richmond U.S. District Court refuses to dismiss plaintiff mortgage company’s suit for specific performance to require defendant to repurchase four loans plaintiff bought during the past seven years that allegedly were subject to repurchase due to faulty information on the loan application or other identified problems with the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/mortgage-company-wants-to-enforce-repurchase-contract/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Fraudulent Joinder’ of Car Seller, Court Says&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/20/fraudulent-joinder-of-car-seller-court-says/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/20/fraudulent-joinder-of-car-seller-court-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:49:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge M. Hannah Lauck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert E. Payne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72718</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this products liability suit arising from death of the mother of the owner of a GM Envoy Denali in a rollover crash after the vehicle was rear-ended, a Richmond U.S. District Court accepts the magistrate judge’s report and denies remand of the case based on fraudulent joinder of a car dealership that proved it [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/20/fraudulent-joinder-of-car-seller-court-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cable-Theft Claim Against Restaurant Advances&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/cable-theft-claim-against-restaurant-advances/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/cable-theft-claim-against-restaurant-advances/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:41:57 +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 M. Hannah Lauck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72598</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff sports production company that had a license agreement to show on closed-circuit television a professional boxing championship match may sue defendant restaurant for allegedly intercepting the broadcast and allowing its patrons to see the match; the magistrate judge for the Richmond U.S. District Court denies the restaurant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The complaint [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/cable-theft-claim-against-restaurant-advances/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Duty of Impartiality for Trustee&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/no-duty-of-impartiality-for-trustee/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/no-duty-of-impartiality-for-trustee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:42:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge M. Hannah Lauck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72250</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiffs who lost their homes to foreclosure have not stated claims for a trustee’s breach of an alleged duty of impartiality, but the Richmond U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge will allow plaintiffs to amend their claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violation of RICO laws. The complaints fail to state a claim for the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/no-duty-of-impartiality-for-trustee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prisoner sues for violation of civil rights &#8211; Defense Verdict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/20/prisoner-sues-for-violation-of-civil-rights-defense-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/20/prisoner-sues-for-violation-of-civil-rights-defense-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:44:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge M. Hannah Lauck]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69058</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A post-conviction prisoner sought damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec.1983 for excessive force. Prisoner claimed that after being yanked from his bunk, and after being handcuffed, defendant jail deputies repeated struck him in the head in a malicious and intentional violation of his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/20/prisoner-sues-for-violation-of-civil-rights-defense-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pregnancy, ADA &amp; FMLA Claims Dismissed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/12/pregnancy-ada-fmla-claims-dismissed/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/12/pregnancy-ada-fmla-claims-dismissed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:25:43 +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 M. Hannah Lauck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A former state employee who alleges she was harassed and subjected to adverse employment actions when she could not repay a $400 loan from her supervisor, and that she was discriminated against due to her pregnancy, cannot state a claim for discrimination and the Richmond U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge grants defendant state agency’s motion [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/12/pregnancy-ada-fmla-claims-dismissed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Black Ice Was Open &amp; Obvious&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/20/black-ice-was-open-obvious/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/20/black-ice-was-open-obvious/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:41:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge M. Hannah Lauck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=67875</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As snow had fallen during the two mid-December days before plaintiff went to the post office to mail her Christmas cards, the postmaster had the lot plowed twice, including less than two hours before plaintiff’s arrival, and had repeatedly spread chemical ice-melt, the postmaster reasonably responded to the appropriate duty of care, and the Richmond [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/20/black-ice-was-open-obvious/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lender Wins on Broker Indemnity&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/06/lender-wins-on-broker-indemnity/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/06/lender-wins-on-broker-indemnity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:15:12 +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 M. Hannah Lauck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/06/lender-wins-on-broker-indemnity/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Richmond U.S. District Court magistrate judge grants summary judgment to plaintiff mortgage company against defendant broker on a claim defendant broker breached a provision of the parties’ Mortgage Broker Agreement that required defendant to indemnify plaintiff. SunTrust alleges it sold the loans at issue in this case to Fannie Mae and assumed indemnification and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/06/lender-wins-on-broker-indemnity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Time for Discovery Response Extended&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/time-for-discovery-response-extended/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/time-for-discovery-response-extended/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 20:03:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge M. Hannah Lauck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/time-for-discovery-response-extended/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this contract litigation between a mortgage company and defendant loan broker, a Richmond U.S. District Court grants defendant, who says it is “out-of-state, defunct and assetless,” extra time to respond to discovery requests, but no extra time to object to discovery. On Aug. 25, 2011, SunTrust filed a complaint alleging defendant LCMG breached the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/time-for-discovery-response-extended/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
