<?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 Mary Jane Hall</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-mary-jane-hall/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 20:35:53 +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 Drywall Damages for Mortgage Payments&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/no-drywall-damages-for-mortgage-payments/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/no-drywall-damages-for-mortgage-payments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 14:03:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mary Jane Hall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74291</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Norfolk Circuit Court grants defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence of mortgage payments on homes that were unlivable as a result of the presence of Chinese drywall, as mortgage payments are not a proper measure of loss of use damages. Defendant claims this element of damages was not disclosed in discovery responses provide [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/no-drywall-damages-for-mortgage-payments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Missed Diagnosis Claim Not ‘Gross Negligence’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/missed-diagnosis-claim-not-gross-negligence/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/missed-diagnosis-claim-not-gross-negligence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 13:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mary Jane Hall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74288</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Norfolk Circuit Court sustains a demurrer to a gross negligence claim filed by the estate of a woman who allegedly died as a result of the defendant resident physician’s failure to diagnose the woman’s ectopic pregnancy; the Norfolk Circuit Court sustains defendant physician’s demurrer to the gross negligence claim, but overrules the special plea [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/missed-diagnosis-claim-not-gross-negligence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Guardian Can Change Beneficiary&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/19/new-guardian-can-change-beneficiary/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/19/new-guardian-can-change-beneficiary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:35:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mary Jane Hall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills & Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71509</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this suit involving competing claims to life insurance proceeds, a Norfolk Circuit Court holds that decedent’s widow, who was replaced by decedent’s daughter as his guardian and conservator, could be removed by the daughter as a beneficiary on decedent’s life insurance benefits, a change he requested when the daughter assisted him in processing his [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/19/new-guardian-can-change-beneficiary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Drywall Installers Face Building Code Claims&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/19/drywall-installers-face-building-code-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/19/drywall-installers-face-building-code-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:34:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mary Jane Hall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Products Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Norfolk Circuit Court preparing to try homeowners’ claims against defendant installers of defective Chinese drywall will exclude evidence of negligence by other defendants who may have settled their claims in multi-district litigation in federal court and will prohibit installer defendants from arguing they are not covered by the Building Code; the court also overrules [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/19/drywall-installers-face-building-code-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Forms over substance: Agency can’t retract payments by claiming paperwork errors&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/26/forms-over-substance-agency-cant-retract-payments-by-claiming-paperwork-errors/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/26/forms-over-substance-agency-cant-retract-payments-by-claiming-paperwork-errors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:09:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Fletcher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfax County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Lorraine Nordlund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mary Jane Hall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71035</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services has been rebuffed in two different cases in its efforts to get back money it paid for services rendered through Medicaid. In cases from Fairfax and Norfolk, DMAS sought to retract payments of more than $100,000 by claiming providers made errors in filling out agency forms. But two [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/26/forms-over-substance-agency-cant-retract-payments-by-claiming-paperwork-errors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Agency Was ‘Arbitrary’ in Pulling Medicaid Pay&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/05/agency-was-arbitrary-in-pulling-medicaid-pay/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/05/agency-was-arbitrary-in-pulling-medicaid-pay/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:30:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mary Jane Hall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70543</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A decision by the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services retracting $190,111.71 in payment from plaintiff Sentara Medical Equipment for provision of enteral nutrition supplements to Virginia Medicaid beneficiaries is reversed; the Norfolk Circuit Court says the agency’s interpretation of its regulations to require a physician’s signature of the forms submitted by Sentara is “arbitrary [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/05/agency-was-arbitrary-in-pulling-medicaid-pay/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Nonsuit After Defective Signature&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/05/no-nonsuit-after-defective-signature/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/05/no-nonsuit-after-defective-signature/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:27:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mary Jane Hall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70539</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff whose complaint was defective because it listed plaintiff’s attorneys but was only signed by plaintiff, may not nonsuit and refile beyond the statute of limitations, as the original complaint was not a validly pending proceeding, says a Norfolk Circuit Court. In the case at hand, plaintiff’s individual signature is the only signature on [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/05/no-nonsuit-after-defective-signature/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Dismissal for Pre-Indictment Delay&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/05/no-dismissal-for-pre-indictment-delay/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/05/no-dismissal-for-pre-indictment-delay/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:09:37 +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 Mary Jane Hall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70515</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although defendant was not indicted until 2012 for three murders that occurred in 2007, the Norfolk Circuit Court denies defendant’s motion alleging the pre-indictment delay violated his due process rights. Norfolk police interrogated defendant as a suspect on Sept. 27, 2007, after the Aug. 29, 2007 murders. Defendant provided alleged alibi witnesses during that interview [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/05/no-dismissal-for-pre-indictment-delay/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trustee Signature Enforceable for LLC Contract&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/16/trustee-signature-enforceable-for-llc-contract/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/16/trustee-signature-enforceable-for-llc-contract/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 15:23:47 +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 Mary Jane Hall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/16/trustee-signature-enforceable-for-llc-contract/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defendant, an antiques and collectible business, cannot avoid liability on this contract to purchase the assets of a liquidated LLC called “The Two Antique Dealers” by arguing the sale contract is not enforceable because plaintiff trustee in liquidation did not sign the contract in that capacity; the Norfolk Circuit Court overrules defendant’s plea in bar. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/16/trustee-signature-enforceable-for-llc-contract/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Denial of Zoning Certificate Reversed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/02/denial-of-zoning-certificate-reversed/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/02/denial-of-zoning-certificate-reversed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:06:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mary Jane Hall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/02/denial-of-zoning-certificate-reversed/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Norfolk Circuit Court overturns a zoning administrator’s refusal to issue a zoning certificate to state petitioner’s use of his property complied with the zoning ordinance, to allow the owner to obtain a business license to operate a used auto sales business at the location; the administrator erred in holding the prior nonconforming use of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/02/denial-of-zoning-certificate-reversed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
