Home (page 4)

Tag Archives: Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon

WDVA: Prisoner’s dim-lighting claim can proceed to discovery (access required)

An inmate’s claim that officials at Green Rock Correctional Center violated his Eighth Amendment rights by keeping cell lights off for 23 hours per day survived a motion to dismiss. Other claims, including the inmate’s assignment to a top bunk ...

Read More »

WDVA: Medicare fraud allegations lack specificity (access required)

An employee accusing her former employer of Medicare fraud through misreporting of services provided didn’t provide sufficient detail, either of the fraudulent behavior itself or her alleged notice to the employer. Background Plaintiff Kimberly Branscome, a physical therapy assistant, brings ...

Read More »

WDVA: Immediate easement possession for pipeline co. (access required)

This court’s order of Jan. 31 granting Mountain Valley Pipeline immediate possession to numerous easements in the construction pathway of a FERC-approved pipeline was conditioned on its first presenting sufficient additional evidence that satisfies the constitutional requirements of eminent domain. ...

Read More »

Eminent domain possession requires proper valuation (access required)

The court held that Mountain Valley Pipeline had the right to condemn affected easements, but could not possess them before determining fair value. On October 13, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a Certificate Order authorizing Plaintiff Mountain Valley ...

Read More »

Notice Sufficient, “Applicable Law” Does Not Incorporate Future Law (access required)

Plaintiff asserts three defendants failed to comply with the terms of the note and deed of trust on her home and seeks to rescind the sale of her property to a fourth defendant, all four of whom were involved in ...

Read More »

Sales Ratio Comparison Stated False Ad Claim (access required)

In this dispute between two producers of “wood-alternative decking,” a Harrisonburg U.S. District Court dismisses as “puffery” plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims based on statements that defendant is “number one” and the “preferred premium leader” in product categories, but refuses to ...

Read More »