<?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; Salem Circuit Court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/salem-circuit-court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:57:25 +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>Parties Should Discuss Discovery Issues&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/parties-should-discuss-discovery-issues/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/parties-should-discuss-discovery-issues/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:56:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Clifford R. Weckstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salem Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72789</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this long-running contract dispute between a homeowner and a home builder, a Salem Circuit Court denies a motion to reconsider and motions to compel and admonishes the lawyers that “ad hominem attacks, bitterness and biting sarcasm upon or about opposing counsel” are not consistent with the standards of professionalism endorsed by the Supreme Court [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/parties-should-discuss-discovery-issues/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DSS Wins Fees in Guardian Cases&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/dss-wins-fees-in-guardian-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/dss-wins-fees-in-guardian-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:56:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elder Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Doherty Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salem Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71982</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In light of the Salem Circuit Court’s separate appointments of a guardian and conservator for an elderly husband and wife, after their daughter, a physician licensed in another state, unlawfully dispensed medications to the mother, appeared abusive to her father, and was barred from each parent’s nursing home, the court awards $4,370 in attorney’s fees [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/dss-wins-fees-in-guardian-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ailing Wife Wins Continued Support&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/07/ailing-wife-wins-continued-support/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/07/ailing-wife-wins-continued-support/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:43:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Doherty Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salem Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71766</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In determining spousal support after termination of the parties’ 26-year marriage, a Salem Circuit Court awards wife $2,150 in monthly support, as she is unable to work due to her conditions of lymphoma, diabetes and lupus. Both parties are trying to maintain the standard of living they were accustomed to during marriage. If you take [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/07/ailing-wife-wins-continued-support/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unlicensed Contractor Can Enforce Contract&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/19/unlicensed-contractor-can-enforce-contract/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/19/unlicensed-contractor-can-enforce-contract/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:31:08 +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 Robert P. Doherty Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salem Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70941</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although plaintiff builder split his contractor business into two corporations and is still trying to straighten out his licensing issues, his alleged unlicensed status does not void the contract on which he is suing to collect $385,000 in extras on defendants’ custom-built home, and the Salem Circuit Court denies the homeowner’s motion for partial summary [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/19/unlicensed-contractor-can-enforce-contract/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Good Faith’ Saves Search for Tools&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/10/good-faith-saves-search-for-tools/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/10/good-faith-saves-search-for-tools/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Doherty Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salem Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search & Seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69430</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A search warrant for power tools, copper and accelerants was not supported by an affidavit that recounted facts such as a convicted felon’s recent delivery to the residence and his purchase of a possible accelerant, but the Salem Circuit Court applies the good faith exception and denies defendant’s motion to suppress. The  affidavit indicated power [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/10/good-faith-saves-search-for-tools/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lateral Land Support is Ongoing Duty&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/07/lateral-land-support-is-ongoing-duty/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/07/lateral-land-support-is-ongoing-duty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:23:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Doherty Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salem Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=67620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although a landowner’s initial claim about an adjacent landowner’s failure to provide lateral support may have originated more than five years ago, with a prior owner, the duty to provide lateral support is ongoing and a Salem Circuit Court judge declines to dismiss plaintiff’s suit on the ground of laches. Reminiscent of an earlier plea [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/07/lateral-land-support-is-ongoing-duty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Credit for Post-Separation House Payments&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/30/no-credit-for-post-separation-house-payments/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/30/no-credit-for-post-separation-house-payments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:53:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Doherty Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salem Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/30/no-credit-for-post-separation-house-payments/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Salem Circuit Court says husband is not entitled to credit for making post-separation mortgage payments on the marital home occupied by wife, because the parties agreed he would continue such payments in lieu of a pendente lite hearing for determination of temporary spousal support and debt payments; also, the court declines to credit against [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/01/30/no-credit-for-post-separation-house-payments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wife Owes Support for Seven Children&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/12/01/wife-owes-support-for-seven-children/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/12/01/wife-owes-support-for-seven-children/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:45:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Doherty Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salem Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/12/01/wife-owes-support-for-seven-children/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A couple who, for religious reasons, home-schooled their seven children and depended solely on husband’s income as an engineer, are ordered by the Salem Circuit Court to divide the marital share of the home, which husband still occupies with the children, to give wife $93,197 for 69 percent of the marital share after husband refinances [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/12/01/wife-owes-support-for-seven-children/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Builder Did Work Without Change Orders&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/10/04/builder-did-work-without-change-orders/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/10/04/builder-did-work-without-change-orders/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:53:34 +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 Robert P. Doherty Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salem Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/10/04/builder-did-work-without-change-orders/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Salem Circuit Court says a contractor who did not require written change orders as he built a $1.3 million home for defendant owners cannot now rely on explicit contract language that required written change orders to get payment for an additional $605,694 worth of work, including a retaining wall, turret windows, an outdoor entertainment [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/10/04/builder-did-work-without-change-orders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guarantor Owes Rent but not Remodeling Costs&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/09/06/guarantor-owes-rent-but-not-remodeling-costs/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/09/06/guarantor-owes-rent-but-not-remodeling-costs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:04:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Doherty Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salem Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/09/06/guarantor-owes-rent-but-not-remodeling-costs/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A guarantor on a restaurant’s lease is liable only for the value of two years’ rent, not for remodeling costs, late payments or advertising for a new tenant, because the lease’s ambiguity in the term “rent” is construed against the landlord, says the Salem Circuit Court. The guaranty contract contains the statement that “Guarantor’s guaranteed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/09/06/guarantor-owes-rent-but-not-remodeling-costs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
