Civil / Business Law

Virginia Supreme Court Recognizes Intentional Interference Has Five-Year Limitations Period and Can Support Business Conspiracy Claim

On February 27, 2014, the Virginia Supreme Court strengthened intentional interference claims by holding that their statute of limitations period is 5-years long, and that they can support a business conspiracy cause of action.  Before this ruling, many had argued that the statute of limitations was only 2-years long based on Virginia’s distinction between “personal claims” and “property claims”.  Finding that the right to enforce the performance of a contract and to benefit from advantageous business relationships…

Virginia Supreme Court Recognizes Intentional Interference Has Five-Year Limitations Period and Can Support Business Conspiracy Claim Read More »

Arbitration Required Even After Chosen Arbitrator Becomes Unavailable

The Virginia Supreme Court recently enforced an arbitration agreement even though it required arbitration through a company that could not conduct the proceedings.  The Court overturned the ruling of the trial court, which found that the unavailability of the selected arbitrator invalidated the agreement.  The decision confirms Virginia’s continuing preference for arbitration and broad enforcement of arbitration agreements.  See Schuiling v. Harris, 286 Va. 187 (Sep. 12, 2013). The case involved the owner of Brown

Arbitration Required Even After Chosen Arbitrator Becomes Unavailable Read More »

Roberto Duran Case: Management Agreement Restricting Movie Deal Does Not Violate the First Amendment, but Challenge to Agreement May Proceed

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland recently held that a boxer’s agreement with his business manager granting the manager exclusive rights to the boxer’s name and image and  the right to produce books or movies regarding his life story did not violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment.  The court reasoned that the private agreement did not involve state action so as to run afoul of the First Amendment.  Nevertheless,

Roberto Duran Case: Management Agreement Restricting Movie Deal Does Not Violate the First Amendment, but Challenge to Agreement May Proceed Read More »

Ask the Arlington Fairfax Attorney: In a Violation of a Protective Order Case, What Does it Mean to Enter a Place “Furtively?”

Often, words used in Virginia criminal statutes are not colloquial.  In a recent case, an allegation of Violation of a Protective Order was elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony based on whether the defendant entered a home “furtively.” In this case, the defendant and the victim formerly had a romantic relationship.  However, Romeo and Juliet they were not; the victim obtained a Protective Order against the defendant.  (Protective Orders bar a person from having

Ask the Arlington Fairfax Attorney: In a Violation of a Protective Order Case, What Does it Mean to Enter a Place “Furtively?” Read More »

When Can a Business Shred its Documents? The Federal Court in Maryland Sanctions Two Companies for Pre-Litigation Spoliation of Evidence

When two consulting firms believed that documents containing confidential  information were improperly within a high-level consultant’s possession, they authorized the destruction of the documents and terminated the consultant.  The consultant sued the companies in Maryland Federal Court for terminating him without cause in breach of the parties’ contract.  He also moved for sanctions against the companies, arguing that the companies had wrongfully destroyed evidence when litigation was reasonably foreseeable.  The Court agreed to sanction the

When Can a Business Shred its Documents? The Federal Court in Maryland Sanctions Two Companies for Pre-Litigation Spoliation of Evidence Read More »

Scroll to Top