<?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; Supreme Court of Virginia</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/supreme-court-of-virginia/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>Capital Murder Sentences Upheld&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/capital-murder-sentences-upheld/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/capital-murder-sentences-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:04:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74080</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Virginia denies habeas relief and upholds the death penalty for each of petitioner’s three capital murder convictions committed when he escaped from custody and shot a hospital security officer and a deputy sheriff in 2006 near the Virginia Tech campus; finding no merit in petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/capital-murder-sentences-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Brady Error in Sex Offense Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/no-brady-error-in-sex-offense-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/no-brady-error-in-sex-offense-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:03:06 +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 A. McClanahan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74078</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At defendant’s trial for various sex offenses against his seven-year-old stepdaughter, he had enough time to make use of a recorded interview with the victim that disclosed potentially inconsistent statements, and the Supreme Court of Virginia says the Court of Appeals erred in reversing defendant’s convictions for the alleged error under Brady v. Maryland, 373 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/no-brady-error-in-sex-offense-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Habeas Petition, Direct Appeal Can Co-Exist&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/habeas-petition-direct-appeal-can-co-exist/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/habeas-petition-direct-appeal-can-co-exist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:04:27 +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 Cynthia D. Kinser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73976</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a direct appeal of larceny convictions can proceed simultaneously in the Supreme Court of Virginia, and that court dismisses this petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel as petitioner has not shown that, but for his counsel’s alleged errors, the outcome of his trial would have been [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/habeas-petition-direct-appeal-can-co-exist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>Firearms Statute Allows Proof of Multiple Priors&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/firearms-statute-allows-proof-of-multiple-priors/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/firearms-statute-allows-proof-of-multiple-priors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:07:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice William C. Mims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73972</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although a Virginia statute prohibits firearm possession by a person “previously convicted of a violent felony,” the trial court did not err in allowing proof of five prior convictions to prove the possession offense, and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirms defendant’s conviction under Va. Code § 18.2-308.2(A). Where the existence of one or more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/firearms-statute-allows-proof-of-multiple-priors/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>Tort Claims Not Barred by Prior Contract Action&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/tort-claims-not-barred-by-prior-contract-action/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/tort-claims-not-barred-by-prior-contract-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:00:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Donald W. Lemons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73968</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this long-running dispute between two coal companies, the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of res judicata to hold that an earlier contract action bars plaintiff’s later suit alleging tortious interference; applying the law of res judicata in effect in 1998, Supreme Court of Virginia reverses dismissal of the lawsuit. Over the last [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/tort-claims-not-barred-by-prior-contract-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Church Property Subject to Constructive Trust&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/church-property-subject-to-constructive-trust/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/church-property-subject-to-constructive-trust/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:58:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Cleo E. Powell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73966</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this protracted and complex dispute between plaintiffs, the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S., and seven local congregations that disaffiliated from the larger church, plaintiffs have demonstrated a proprietary interest in the church property at issue and the Supreme Court of Virginia says a constructive trust may be [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/church-property-subject-to-constructive-trust/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Birth Injury Recovery May Exceed Cap&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/birth-injury-recovery-may-exceed-cap/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/birth-injury-recovery-may-exceed-cap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:54:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice LeRoy F. Millette Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73962</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A med-mal carrier is required to defend an action filed by parents who alleged defendant physician represented that he participated in Virginia’s Birth Injury Fund, but failed to pay into the Fund, which is not available to cover neurological injuries suffered by their child at birth; the Supreme Court of Virginia affirms declaratory judgment for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/birth-injury-recovery-may-exceed-cap/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Firm Fee Payment Upheld&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/law-firm-fee-payment-upheld/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/law-firm-fee-payment-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:53:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73960</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A law firm gets to keep $130,000 in attorney’s fees after a sale of real estate as part of a disputed estate case; the Supreme Court of Virginia says the circuit court had jurisdiction to distribute the fee as part of the sale proceeds in the settlement of the related equity actions involving trust and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/law-firm-fee-payment-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
