<?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 Mark Davis</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-mark-davis/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 18:38:06 +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>No Repleading in Condemnation Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/no-repleading-in-condemnation-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/no-repleading-in-condemnation-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:19:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mark Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In litigation involving this “quick-take” condemnation proceeding by the city of Chesapeake of real estate owned by Clear Sky Car Wash LLC, as part of a federally funded highway initiative, the Norfolk U.S. District Court declines to reverse its prior dismissal of the case with prejudice, in order to allow plaintiff Car Wash to now [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/no-repleading-in-condemnation-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Venue Change in Patent Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/no-venue-change-in-patent-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/no-venue-change-in-patent-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:28:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mark Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73294</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Norfolk U.S. District Court denies a transfer of venue to a New Jersey federal court and venue-related discovery in this patent infringement suit; the patented technologies at issue here were all researched and developed primarily in this district. Plaintiff Virginia Innovation Sciences Inc. (VIS) is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/no-venue-change-in-patent-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bank Says TARP Prohibits Severance for Ex-CEO&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/bank-says-tarp-prohibits-severance-for-ex-ceo/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/bank-says-tarp-prohibits-severance-for-ex-ceo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:59:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mark Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73272</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff banks may not use a federal declaratory judgment action to avoid paying a former executive a Severance Allowance, which they say is not owed under his Employment Agreement amended to conform to TARP regulations prohibiting “golden parachute” payments; the Norfolk U.S. District Court says the mere fact that TARP is implicated in the case [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/bank-says-tarp-prohibits-severance-for-ex-ceo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bank cites TARP to avoid paying ‘golden parachute’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/18/bank-cites-tarp-to-avoid-paying-golden-parachute/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/18/bank-cites-tarp-to-avoid-paying-golden-parachute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:19:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banks & Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mark Davis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73216</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A bank’s ex-CEO who seeks severance pay lives to fight another day after a Norfolk federal judge rejected the bank’s preemptive strike. When Scott C. Harvard demanded the severance payment, Shore Bank, his former employer, filed suit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not liable for severance pay under controlling federal [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/18/bank-cites-tarp-to-avoid-paying-golden-parachute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Jurisdiction Over Trade-Name Dispute&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/no-jurisdiction-over-trade-name-dispute/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/no-jurisdiction-over-trade-name-dispute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:40:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mark Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72888</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Virginia plaintiff that wants to operate a PEOPLExpress Airline may not sue defendant applicant for a trademark plaintiff seeks in Virginia federal court because the Newport New U.S. District Court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant applicant, a New Jersey corporation operating from New York. Plaintiff People Express Airlines Inc. d/b/a PEOPLExpress Airlines [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/no-jurisdiction-over-trade-name-dispute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Injunction in Jail Employees’ Strip-Search Suit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/no-injunction-in-jail-employees-strip-search-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/no-injunction-in-jail-employees-strip-search-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:16:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mark Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72588</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this litigation challenging a sheriff’s strip search of employees of the contractor that provided healthcare services to jail inmates after a tip that contractor employees had been bringing contraband into the jail, and the revocation of their security clearances after the employees filed suit, the Norfolk U.S. District Court denies a preliminary injunction ordering [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/no-injunction-in-jail-employees-strip-search-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rule 11 Sanction for Extra Defendant&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/rule-11-sanction-for-extra-defendant/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/rule-11-sanction-for-extra-defendant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:53:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mark Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72585</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff ordered to pay a sanction of $1,125 in attorney’s fees for violating Rule 11 by adding a defendant without leave of court may not defer payment of the sanction on the ground that she is unemployed and indigent; the Newport News U.S. District Court denies plaintiff’s late-filed motion. Plaintiff’s motion was filed after [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/rule-11-sanction-for-extra-defendant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Second-Tier Sub Has Miller Act Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/second-tier-sub-has-miller-act-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/second-tier-sub-has-miller-act-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:36:30 +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 Mark Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An electrical contractor hired as a “sub-subcontractor” on a project to build beach cottages for the U.S. Navy may sue on the prime contractor’s payment bond, says a Norfolk U.S. District Court. This is a Miller Act payment bond action seeking recovery on a payment bond the prime contractor was required to obtain on a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/second-tier-sub-has-miller-act-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Title VII Suit After Bankruptcy Nondisclosure&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/no-title-vii-suit-after-bankruptcy-nondisclosure/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/no-title-vii-suit-after-bankruptcy-nondisclosure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:03:29 +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 Mark Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff has no standing to pursue her Title VII suit alleging a sexually hostile work environment at her workplace because she did not disclose her Title VII claims during her Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding; the Newport News U.S. District Court accepts the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss plaintiff’s suit against the Peninsula Airport Commission. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/no-title-vii-suit-after-bankruptcy-nondisclosure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Parses Patent Experts’ Testimony&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/19/court-parses-patent-experts-testimony/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/19/court-parses-patent-experts-testimony/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:41:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mark Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71456</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this suit alleging infringement of a patent for technology used to detect trace amounts of contraband, a Norfolk U.S. District Court says defense experts may testify generally about the science and operation of certain kinds of detection instruments, but may not testify on the issue of non-infringement. The asserted claims at issue involving the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/19/court-parses-patent-experts-testimony/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
