<?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; Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/justice-elizabeth-b-lacy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 20:24:01 +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>Utility Gets Rate Adjustment for Environmental Costs&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/07/utility-gets-rate-adjustment-for-environmental-costs/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/07/utility-gets-rate-adjustment-for-environmental-costs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:59:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70571</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Appellant utility company is entitled to a rate adjustment clause for recovery of actual costs it directly incurred for environmental compliance in 2009 and 2010, but did not recover through its base rates; the Supreme Court of Virginia reverses the State Corporation Commission’s denial of  recovery of environmental compliance costs on the basis that those [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/07/utility-gets-rate-adjustment-for-environmental-costs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Conviction Not Tainted by GPS Use&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/conviction-not-tainted-by-gps-use/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/conviction-not-tainted-by-gps-use/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:39:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69724</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although police violated defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights when they tracked him by placing a GPS device on the company-owned work van he drove, as it was parked on a public street, the Supreme Court of Virginia upholds his conviction for a subsequent sexually violent assault under Va. Code § 18.2-67.5:3, as the admission of eyewitness [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/conviction-not-tainted-by-gps-use/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Service to Single ‘Last Known’ Address Suffices&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/service-to-single-last-known-address-suffices/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/service-to-single-last-known-address-suffices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:41:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69705</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although a contract between a Florida financial company and plaintiff Virginia Tech identified a street address for the company, the contract called for any notices to be sent to a Post Office box in Miami, and Virginia Tech did not need to include both addresses for substituted service on the Florida company; the Supreme Court [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/service-to-single-last-known-address-suffices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Code Compliance Duty to Tenant&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/13/no-code-compliance-duty-to-tenant/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/13/no-code-compliance-duty-to-tenant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:48:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=67775</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A residential landlord does not have a duty in tort to tenants to comply with building and housing codes concerning public health and safety, either under the common law, the leases executed in this case or the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act; the Supreme Court of Virginia affirms a trial court’s dismissal of a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/13/no-code-compliance-duty-to-tenant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partnership Dissolved for Frustration of Purpose&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/partnership-dissolved-for-frustration-of-purpose/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/partnership-dissolved-for-frustration-of-purpose/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 16:01:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/partnership-dissolved-for-frustration-of-purpose/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A brother and sister who were co-trustees and held interests in a real estate development partnership set up by their father have been unable for years to agree on trust matters, causing the trust to incur additional expenses because of these disagreements, and the Virginia Supreme Court upholds judicial dissolution of the partnership, based on [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/partnership-dissolved-for-frustration-of-purpose/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Transfer Outside Va. for SVP&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/07/no-transfer-outside-va-for-svp/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/07/no-transfer-outside-va-for-svp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:33:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/07/no-transfer-outside-va-for-svp/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A sexually violent predator cannot be conditionally released for supervision outside Virginia on the basis that he already is subject to supervised probation for another crime and therefore is eligible for transfer under the Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Adult Offenders. Appellee was convicted in 1989 of various sex crimes and determined to be [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/07/no-transfer-outside-va-for-svp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Petitioner Released, But Case Goes On&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/07/petitioner-released-but-case-goes-on/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/07/petitioner-released-but-case-goes-on/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:24:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/07/petitioner-released-but-case-goes-on/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A circuit court had jurisdiction over a habeas petition when the juvenile petitioner was released from custody while the petition was pending but faces “collateral consequences” such as the need to register as a sex offender, and the Supreme Court of Virginia reverses the trial court’s dismissal of the habeas petition. Petitioner E.C. was a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/07/petitioner-released-but-case-goes-on/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Officer Could Question Counsel Request&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/18/officer-could-question-counsel-request/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/18/officer-could-question-counsel-request/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/18/officer-could-question-counsel-request/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Virginia Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that under the facts of this case, two officers could have reasonably viewed defendant’s statement, “That’s what I want, a lawyer, man” as ambiguous and they were permitted to ask defendant clarifying questions. Defendant argues that his statement, “That’s what I want, a lawyer, man” [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/18/officer-could-question-counsel-request/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Restaurant Features Could be Fixtures&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/06/14/restaurant-features-could-be-fixtures/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/06/14/restaurant-features-could-be-fixtures/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/06/14/restaurant-features-could-be-fixtures/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this case involving condemnation of a Fairfax property with a Taco Bell restaurant, the Virginia Supreme Court says the trial court erred in striking the owner’s evidence that features such as a cooler, freezer, warming ovens and work stations were not personal property but “fixtures” to be included in valuing the realty. Whether certain [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/06/14/restaurant-features-could-be-fixtures/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Venue Over Dealer Proper Where Teen Sold Drug&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/06/13/venue-over-dealer-proper-where-teen-sold-drug/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/06/13/venue-over-dealer-proper-where-teen-sold-drug/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:18:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/06/13/venue-over-dealer-proper-where-teen-sold-drug/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Virginia says that for a defendant charged with causing a juvenile to assist in the distribution of marijuana to a third party in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-255(A)(ii), venue was proper in Hanover County where the teen sold the marijuana, even though the confidential informant took the teen to defendant’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/06/13/venue-over-dealer-proper-where-teen-sold-drug/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
