<?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; Municipal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/municipal/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>No Conflict for Board Vote on Permit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/no-conflict-for-board-vote-on-permit/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/no-conflict-for-board-vote-on-permit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:32:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice William C. Mims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73974</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two members of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors who also held director positions with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority did not have conflicts of interest that precluded them from voting on WMATA’s application for a special exception to build a bus maintenance facility near appellant Newberry Station neighborhood, and the Supreme Court of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/no-conflict-for-board-vote-on-permit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Board May Sue School Bond Advisor&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/board-may-sue-school-bond-advisor/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/board-may-sue-school-bond-advisor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:01:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice LeRoy F. Millette Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A county board of supervisors may sue a private financial advisor hired by the board for breach of fiduciary duty; the Supreme Court of Virginia says the board effectively waived its common law legislative immunity from civil liability, and reverses the circuit court judgment sustaining the demurrer filed by the financial advisor. The board sued [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/board-may-sue-school-bond-advisor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Appeal Bond’ Not Good Notice to County&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/13/appeal-bond-not-good-notice-to-county/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/13/appeal-bond-not-good-notice-to-county/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:13:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice LeRoy F. Millette Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73154</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Virginia reverses a judgment that would have allowed 13 retired county employees to collect additional retirement benefits they argued they were owed because of a miscalculation by a county employee prior to their retirements; the retirees’ documents entitled “Appeal Bond” did not satisfy the Va. Code § 15.2-1246 requirement for written [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/13/appeal-bond-not-good-notice-to-county/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Psychic Counselor Subject to License Law&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/psychic-counselor-subject-to-license-law/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/psychic-counselor-subject-to-license-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:50:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Allyson K. Duncan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Virginia county may require a “spiritual counselor” who offers psychic readings to obtain a business license and follow local zoning laws; the 4th Circuit says she is entitled to some First Amendment protection, but the county has not unconstitutionally abridged her free speech rights, nor has it violated RLUIPA or plaintiff’s right to equal [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/psychic-counselor-subject-to-license-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Procurement Review for Fitness Center&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/15/no-procurement-review-for-fitness-center/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/15/no-procurement-review-for-fitness-center/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:57:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71953</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Suits filed by plaintiffs, a group of Fitness Clubs, to challenge actions by a city council and a county board of supervisors to lease public property to a YMCA and to enter into a use agreement with a capital contribution of $2 million for construction of a nonprofit fitness center, should not have been heard [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/15/no-procurement-review-for-fitness-center/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Referendum Request Rejected by Court&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/04/referendum-request-rejected-by-court/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/04/referendum-request-rejected-by-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:08:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Dennis Lee Hupp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shenandoah County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69972</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A motion for protective order filed by the Virginia Resources Authority is rendered moot, says a Shenandoah County Circuit Court, and the court sustains in part and overrules in part the VRA’s plea in bar in the present suit seeking a referendum requiring voter approval for financing of the Rappahannock-Shenandoah-Warren Regional Jail. I sustain the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/04/referendum-request-rejected-by-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Parent Has Standing to Challenge Plan&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/10/parent-has-standing-to-challenge-plan/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/10/parent-has-standing-to-challenge-plan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:17:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Thomas D. Horne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Loudoun County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69436</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Loudoun County Circuit Court upholds defendant school board’s redistricting decision against a challenge by parents unhappy with the change required by the revised attendance zones. While the court acknowledges its awareness that petitioner has obtained a hardship exemption for his child for the coming school year and that his child will be remaining at [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/10/parent-has-standing-to-challenge-plan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>School Board’s Redistricting Plan Upheld&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/10/school-boards-redistricting-plan-upheld/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/10/school-boards-redistricting-plan-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:15:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Thomas D. Horne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Loudoun County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69432</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Parents of elementary school students lose their challenge to respondent school board’s redistricting decision contending the board exceeded its authority, acted arbitrarily and abused its discretion in adopting new school attendance zones; the Loudoun County Circuit Court dismisses the parents’ petition. Petitioners contend the board inappropriately considered the effect of the proposed plans on the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/10/school-boards-redistricting-plan-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Legal Challenge to County Budget Cuts&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/03/no-legal-challenge-to-county-budget-cuts/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/03/no-legal-challenge-to-county-budget-cuts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Albert Diaz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68107</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A group of local volunteer fire and rescue departments cannot sue county officials on a claim the county reduced funding in retaliation for plaintiffs’ opposition to local legislation; the 4th Circuit affirms dismissal of the suit by the district court, who declined to inquire into defendants’ alleged illicit motive behind an otherwise facially valid budgetary [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/03/no-legal-challenge-to-county-budget-cuts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mail Carrier Must Reimburse Comp Pay&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/03/mail-carrier-must-reimburse-comp-pay/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/03/mail-carrier-must-reimburse-comp-pay/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:13:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James A. Wynn Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68087</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A U.S. Postal Service letter carrier who won a personal-injury lawsuit against a South Carolina town after she fell into a manhole must reimburse the Department of Labor for benefits she received under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act; the 4th Circuit affirms a decision that the town qualifies as a “person other than the U.S.” [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/03/mail-carrier-must-reimburse-comp-pay/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
