<?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; Virginia Circuit Courts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/virginia-circuit-courts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:27:17 +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>Pretrial Injunction Ordered in Trade Secret Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/pretrial-injunction-ordered-in-trade-secret-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/pretrial-injunction-ordered-in-trade-secret-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:15:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mosby G. Perrow III]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lynchburg Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Lynchburg Circuit Court grants a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant’s use or disclosure of trade secrets or confidential and/or proprietary information defendant may have obtained from his prior employment with plaintiff, before he went to work for a competitor. Under Virginia law, in order to establish misappropriation of trade secrets under Va. Code § [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/pretrial-injunction-ordered-in-trade-secret-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fraud Claim Survives in Modular Home Suit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/fraud-claim-survives-in-modular-home-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/fraud-claim-survives-in-modular-home-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:13:55 +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 Thomas D. Horne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Loudoun County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74345</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff who alleges shoddy craftsmanship, structural deficiencies and an absence of oversight in the installation of a modular home may pursue her fraud claim against a single defendant, but her other claims are barred by the economic loss rule, says a Loudoun County Circuit Court. Plaintiff alleges that on May 5, 2011, she entered [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/fraud-claim-survives-in-modular-home-suit/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>Bond Principal ‘Necessary Party’ for Bond Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/bond-principal-necessary-party-for-bond-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/bond-principal-necessary-party-for-bond-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:10:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfax County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Michael F. Devine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74341</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although plaintiff Johnson Controls Inc., who provided materials to defendant Norair Engineering for a construction project on which Norair was a subcontractor, named Norair as a defendant in plaintiff’s suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien, plaintiff failed to name Norair as a defendant in the specific count to enforce the substituted bond, and because Norair [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/bond-principal-necessary-party-for-bond-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Broker Seeks Commission on Shopping Center Sale&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/broker-seeks-commission-on-shopping-center-sale/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/broker-seeks-commission-on-shopping-center-sale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:09:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfax County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Jonathan C. Thacher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74339</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In plaintiff broker’s suit for commission for the sale of Winchester Station shopping center, defendant had a buyer’s brokerage agreement of no definite duration and a confidentiality agreement for one year, prior to the property being listed, and the Fairfax Circuit Court denies summary judgment to defendant buyer because there are disputed facts concerning the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/broker-seeks-commission-on-shopping-center-sale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Funeral Attendee Not VFW Agent&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/funeral-attendee-not-vfw-agent/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/funeral-attendee-not-vfw-agent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:07:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Chadwick S. Dotson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wise County Circuit Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74337</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiffs have not shown that an individual defendant was acting as an agent of the local or national Veterans of Foreign Wars organizations when he attended funerals, and the Wise County Circuit Court dismisses plaintiffs’ complaint on defendants’ plea in bar. The party asserting a plea in bar bears the burden of proof on the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/funeral-attendee-not-vfw-agent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Malpractice Suit Against Bankruptcy Lawyer Dismissed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/malpractice-suit-against-bankruptcy-lawyer-dismissed/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/malpractice-suit-against-bankruptcy-lawyer-dismissed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:06:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fauquier County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Jeffrey W. Parker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A former client’s legal malpractice action against his bankruptcy lawyer is time-barred because the alleged act – persuading the client to sell his home to the lawyer, who later sold it at a profit – occurred after termination of the representation on July 7, 2005, and the Fauquier County Circuit Court dismisses the suit. Plaintiff’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/malpractice-suit-against-bankruptcy-lawyer-dismissed/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>
	</channel>
</rss>
