<?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 Timothy J. Hauler</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-timothy-j-hauler/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:27:57 +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>Jury award against builder set aside&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/20/jury-award-against-builder-set-aside/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/20/jury-award-against-builder-set-aside/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:55:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chesterfield County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Timothy J. Hauler]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69067</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A builder will not have to pay a six-figure jury verdict won by a couple who complained when construction of their new home ground to a halt. A Chesterfield County jury said builder William Howard should pay Justin and Martha Horne $278,737.17, holding him personally liable for breaching the Hornes’ contract with Howard’s company Eco-Logic [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/20/jury-award-against-builder-set-aside/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Corporate-Veil Jury Award Set Aside&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/17/corporate-veil-jury-award-set-aside/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/17/corporate-veil-jury-award-set-aside/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:49:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chesterfield County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Timothy J. Hauler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Chesterfield County Circuit Court sets aside a $278,737 jury award to plaintiff buyers against an individual defendant in a residential real estate construction project, as the buyers did not present sufficient evidence to support their theory of piercing the corporate veil to hold the individual defendant liable for damages. At trial, plaintiffs presented evidence [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/17/corporate-veil-jury-award-set-aside/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Woman alleges negligence during hemorrhoid surgery &#8211; Defense Verdict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/05/30/woman-alleges-negligence-during-hemorrhoid-surgery-defense-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/05/30/woman-alleges-negligence-during-hemorrhoid-surgery-defense-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 15:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chesterfield County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Timothy J. Hauler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Million-Dollar Defense Verdicts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/05/30/woman-alleges-negligence-during-hemorrhoid-surgery-defense-verdict/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The plaintiff was a 39-year-old female who went to the defendant general surgeon with extremely painful Grade IV hemorrhoids in March 2005. He admitted her to the hospital and performed surgery the next day to remove the hemorrhoids. There was no dispute that the defendant’s diagnosis was correct and that surgery was the only reasonable [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/05/30/woman-alleges-negligence-during-hemorrhoid-surgery-defense-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Richmond judge files $1.7 defamation suit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/04/07/richmond-judge-files-17-defamation-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/04/07/richmond-judge-files-17-defamation-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:39:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Melvin R. Hughes Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Timothy J. Hauler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richmond Circuit Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=62183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Richmond Circuit Judge Melvin R. Hughes Jr. has filed a $1.7 million defamation suit against a Richmond weekly newspaper for publishing commentary suggesting he played courtroom politics with lawyers. The suit against The Richmond Voice came after the newspaper published editorial comments about a different defamation suit. Hughes presided over that case, and a jury [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/04/07/richmond-judge-files-17-defamation-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recusal can be a touchy moment for a lawyer&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/02/28/when-a-judge-needs-to-recuse-himself-it%e2%80%99s-a-touchy-moment-for-a-lawyer/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/02/28/when-a-judge-needs-to-recuse-himself-it%e2%80%99s-a-touchy-moment-for-a-lawyer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:39:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Cooper</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colonial Heights Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfax County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General District Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Henrico County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Jane Marum Roush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Lee A. Harris Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Timothy J. Hauler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge William N. Alexander II]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=60342</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It can be a ticklish and touchy moment for a lawyer: the judge in a case has a conflict and needs to pass the file to a colleague. But whether, and how, to ask a judge to recuse herself can be a major source of heartburn. As it turns out, judges are much more likely [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/02/28/when-a-judge-needs-to-recuse-himself-it%e2%80%99s-a-touchy-moment-for-a-lawyer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UIM carrier takes over defense of brain injury case &#8211; $320,000 Verdict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/11/01/uim-carrier-takes-over-defense-of-brain-injury-case-320000-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/11/01/uim-carrier-takes-over-defense-of-brain-injury-case-320000-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:46:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chesterfield County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Timothy J. Hauler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=58002</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The plaintiff was injured on July 19, 2007, when his 1992 Ford pickup truck was rear-ended on Route 1 near Osborne Road in Chesterfield. He was stopped in traffic when the defendant hit him from behind while driving a 2005 Pontiac automobile. Defendant was charged with following too closely and was found guilty in absentia. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/11/01/uim-carrier-takes-over-defense-of-brain-injury-case-320000-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Causation an issue in low-impact collision &#8211; $117,000 Verdict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/08/30/causation-an-issue-in-low-impact-collision-117000-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/08/30/causation-an-issue-in-low-impact-collision-117000-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:58:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chesterfield County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Timothy J. Hauler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=56723</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff was involved in a low-speed, rear-end collision, which the plaintiff described as a “bump” on Oct. 30, 2005. There was little to no visible property damage. Defendant and her passengers all denied being aware that the defendant’s vehicle touched the plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff did not report any injuries at the scene. Three days later, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2010/08/30/causation-an-issue-in-low-impact-collision-117000-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
