John R. Walk *
Andrew P. Sherrod **
This article surveys recent significant developments in Virginia civil practice and procedure. Specifically, the article discusses opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia from June 2009 through April 2010 addressing civil procedure; significant amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia made during the same period; and legislation enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during its 2010 session relating to civil practice.
Continue reading.
*Shareholder, Hirschler Fleischer, P.C., Richmond, Virginia. J.D., 1980, University of Richmond School of Law; B.A., 1977, College of William & Mary. Mr. Walk is an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law
*** Principal, Hirschler Fleischer, P.C., Richmond, Virginia. J.D., 2000, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law; B.A., 1996, Hampden-Sydney College.
Christopher G. Hill *
The 2010 bill that will likely have the most impact on the construction industry is the amendment to Virginia Code section 54.1-411. The amendment to the Virginia Code removes language precluding the use of limitation of liability clauses by design professionals. In its place, the General Assembly substituted language stating that the change does not relieve individuals practicing in the covered professions from any liability arising from his or her employment with a covered entity.
Continue reading.
*LEED AP, Construction Attorney, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC, Richmond, Virginia. J.D., 1997, Washington University School of Law; A.B., 1994, Duke University
Virginia B. Theisen *
Stephen R. McCullough **
In Murillo-Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, the Supreme Court of Virginia, in a lengthy, unanimous opinion, explicitly held that a criminal defendant in a jury trial waives his motion to strike made at the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case when he presents evidence on his own behalf. Therefore, a defendant who presents any evidence must renew his motion to strike at the conclusion of all the evidence, or present a timely motion to set aside the verdict. If he does not do so, the appellate court will not consider his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Continue reading.
*Senior Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Litigation Section, Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia. J.D., 1984, Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William & Mary; B.A, 1981, College of William & Mary.
**Senior Appellate Counsel, Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia. J.D., 1997, University of Richmond School of Law; B.A., 1994, University of Virginia.
Caleb A. Jaffe *
Sean M. Carney **
This past spring marked the fortieth anniversary of Earth Day, first held on April 22, 1970. As the Washington Post reported, the milestone was “cause for celebration—and a mid-life crisis.” The reason for celebration was self-apparent: modern environmental regulation, from 1970 to today, gave us healthier air and cleaner water, and preserved cherished wild places. In addition, thanks to the “technology-forcing” design of many major environmental statutes, environmental regulation fueled greater economic prosperity by spurring industrial innovation. As the economists Michael Porter and Claas van der Linde famously articulated, “Firms can actually benefit from properly crafted environmental regulations that are more stringent (or are imposed earlier) than those faced by their competitors in other countries. By stimulating innovation, strict environmental regulations can actually enhance competitiveness.”
Continue reading.
*Senior Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center and Lecturer, University of Virginia School of Law.
**J.D. Candidate, May 2011, George Mason University School of Law.
Sean P. Byrne *
Lauran G. Stimac **
Health care reform took center stage on a national level over the past year. Despite suggestions that medical liability reform might be incorporated into the federal legislation, in the end, it was not. Similarly, this year saw few legislative developments at the state level in medical malpractice law, as the Virginia General Assembly focused its energy primarily on the budget shortfall and other issues. There were, however, several health care legislative and case developments of note which will impact the medical liability landscape in the coming years. Board of Medicine activity and medical malpractice trial results of interest are also highlighted as we look back at the year‘s noteworthy legal developments in Virginia medical malpractice law.
Continue reading.
*Director, Hancock, Daniel, Johnson & Nagle, P.C., Richmond, Virginia. J.D., 1997, University of Richmond School of Law; B.A., 1993, University of Richmond. Mr. Byrne‘s practice concentrates on medical malpractice defense and health care risk management. He is also an Assistant Adjunct Professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.
**Associate, Hancock, Daniel, Johnson & Nagle, P.C., Richmond, Virginia. J.D., 2007, University of Richmond School of Law; B.A., 2004, University of Richmond. Mrs. Stimac‘s practice also concentrates on medical malpractice defense and health care risk management.
James M. McCauley *
The growing ease of interstate and international travel, the advancements in electronic communications and the resulting globalization of economic activity have made it ever more necessary for lawyers to expand the geographic scope of their practices. Both law firms and their clients increasingly conduct business on a nationwide and even worldwide scale. As the Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice recognized in 2002, “the geographic scope of a lawyer‘s practice must be adequate to enable the lawyer to serve the legal needs of clients in a national and global economy.” Thus lawyers need to be more able than previously to practice in multiple jurisdictions. To this end, the Supreme Court of Virginia adopted new provisions to permit limited practice by foreign lawyers in the Commonwealth. These provisions included the adoption of a foreign legal consultant rule for lawyers admitted to practice in a foreign nation and a temporary practice rule for lawyers admitted in a foreign country or in a territory or state in the United States other than Virginia.
Continue reading.
*Ethics Counsel, Virginia State Bar. J.D., 1982, University of Richmond School of Law; B.A., 1978, James Madison University.
