<?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; Norfolk Circuit Court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/norfolk-circuit-court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 15:22:20 +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>Changes Did Not Create ‘New’ Policy&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/changes-did-not-create-new-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/changes-did-not-create-new-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 15:20:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Everett A. Martin Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74535</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A business auto liability policy at issue was a “renewal” and not a “new” policy, and the Norfolk Circuit Court rejects plaintiff’s claim that he had additional UIM coverage. Plaintiff has filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that the amount of underinsured motorist coverage available to him under a business auto policy Ace [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/changes-did-not-create-new-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defendant Expected Three to Five, Got 19 Years&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/defendant-expected-three-to-five-got-19-years/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/defendant-expected-three-to-five-got-19-years/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 15:18:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74531</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A defendant’s claim that his lawyer told him he would get three to five years for pleading guilty to robbery, but who was sentenced to 19 years, was corroborated by his brother, mother, another defendant who overheard defendant’s bullpen conversation with his lawyer on the day defendant pled and a recorded phone conversation with his [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/defendant-expected-three-to-five-got-19-years/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Toddler suffered brain injury in fall from hotel balcony &#8211; $10,900,000 Settlement&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/20/toddler-suffered-brain-injury-in-fall-from-hotel-balcony-10900000-settlement/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/20/toddler-suffered-brain-injury-in-fall-from-hotel-balcony-10900000-settlement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 13:15:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Million-Dollar Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Premises Liability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74384</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 2-year-old plaintiff was severely injured at a hotel when he fell through a second floor balcony railing landing head first on the pavement below. The balcony railing was missing a vertical bar, resulting in a 12-inch-wide opening. The plaintiff suffered a skull fracture and a right subdural hematoma. Emergency surgery was performed by Dr. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/20/toddler-suffered-brain-injury-in-fall-from-hotel-balcony-10900000-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Expert Testimony Can’t Overturn Hotel Taxes&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/expert-testimony-cant-overturn-hotel-taxes/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/expert-testimony-cant-overturn-hotel-taxes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:11:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Charles E. Poston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74343</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Owners of the Norfolk Waterside Marriott Hotel and Convention Center lose their challenge to the city’s real estate tax assessments for tax years 2009 through 2011, on their theory that the city, in determining fair market value of the properties, failed to take into account the economic downturn that started in late 2007 and caused [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/expert-testimony-cant-overturn-hotel-taxes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Officers Have Immunity from Suit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/officers-have-immunity-from-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/officers-have-immunity-from-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:04:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James P. Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74333</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defendant police officers have satisfied the four-part test for sovereign immunity and the Norfolk Circuit Court grants their special plea in bar filed in response to plaintiff’s negligence suit. Virginia applies the test from James v. Jane, 221 Va. 43 (1980), in order to determine whether a government actor is entitled to sovereign immunity. This [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/officers-have-immunity-from-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No ‘Comp bar” from Equipment Assembly&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/no-comp-bar-from-equipment-assembly/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/no-comp-bar-from-equipment-assembly/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Jerrauld C. Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers' Comp]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74331</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although a rental company employee who delivered sanitation equipment to a job site spent several extra hours assembling the custom equipment, he is not a statutory employee of defendant construction company, and the Norfolk Circuit Court overrules defendant’s special plea in bar of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The parties have stipulated that sanitation, the work [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/no-comp-bar-from-equipment-assembly/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Sets Test for Prior ‘Written Demand’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/court-sets-test-for-prior-written-demand/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/court-sets-test-for-prior-written-demand/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 14:02:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge John R. Doyle III]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74310</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Looking to case law on a similar corporate statute in North Carolina, a Norfolk Circuit Court sets a multi-part test for a minority shareholder’s “written demands” to a corporation required before filing a derivative action, and finds plaintiff met the test for all his claims except his claim that defendants usurped corporate opportunities by developing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/court-sets-test-for-prior-written-demand/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Collateral Estoppel on Firearm Charge&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/no-collateral-estoppel-on-firearm-charge/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/no-collateral-estoppel-on-firearm-charge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 14:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Charles E. Poston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74295</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In defendant’s prosecution on firearm possession charges, the Norfolk Circuit Court denies defendant’s motions to estop the commonwealth from subsequent prosecution or from introducing evidence previously adjudicated during the trial in which defendant was acquitted of murder and use of a firearm charges arising from the same incident. On Oct. 26, 2012, a jury acquitted [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/no-collateral-estoppel-on-firearm-charge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plaintiff May Amend for ‘Gross Negligence’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/plaintiff-may-amend-for-gross-negligence/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/plaintiff-may-amend-for-gross-negligence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 14:04:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Junius P. Fulton III]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In litigation arising from an officer’s automobile collision with another vehicle, the Norfolk Circuit Court will allow plaintiff to amend the complaint to allege gross negligence. Gross negligence means something more than lack of ordinary care. The court defines gross negligence as a degree of negligence which shows an utter disregard of prudence amounting to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/plaintiff-may-amend-for-gross-negligence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>
	</channel>
</rss>
