D. Stan Barnhill


Stan Barnhill is a litigation attorney who represents businesses and individuals in breach of contract, business torts, construction, and other commercial disputes.

Get To Know Stan

Stan is a litigation attorney who represents businesses and individuals in breach of contract, business torts, construction, professional malpractice, and other commercial disputes.

His experience includes representing media outlets in First Amendment, Freedom of Information, reporter privilege, and defamation matters.

Stan also represents business owners, contractors, and design professionals in contract formation, general business law, and litigation avoidance.

Stan joined Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black in 1983. He has been recognized for excellence by Best Lawyers in America for First Amendment law, business and commercial litigation, construction law, and professional malpractice defense. He has been cited by Super Lawyers for construction litigation and multiple times as one of Virginia Business magazine's "Legal Elite for construction law". Stan was featured in Virginia Business’s "2016 Legal Elite" publication.

Stan attended law school at Washington and Lee University, where he graduated magna cum laude, was elected to the Order of the Coif, and served as lead articles editor of the Law Review. He earned his B.S. and M.S. degrees from Virginia Tech.

In addition to his law practice, Stan teaches a course on the First Amendment at the Washington and Lee Law School.


Virginia Supreme Court

  • Martin Bros. Contractors, Inc. v. Virginia Military Institute, 277 Va. 586 (2009)
  • Taboada v. Daly Seven, Inc., 271 Va. 313 (2006)
  • Hertz v. Times-World Corp., 259 Va. 599 (2000)
  • Adkins v. Dixon, 253 Va. 275 (1997)
  • City of Covington v. APB Whiting, Inc., 234 Va. 155 (1987)
  • Mosher Steel-Virginia v. Teig, 229 Va. 95 (1985)

Virginia Court of Appeals

  • Davenport v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 45 Va. App. 526 (2005)
  • In re Struzzi and Times-World Corp., No. 980145 (1998)
  • In re Times-World Corp., 25 Va. App. 405 (1997)
  • In re Times-World Corp., 7 Va. App. 317 (1988)
  • Parris v. Appalachian Power Co., 2 Va. App. 219 (1986)

Virginia Circuit Courts

  • Hicks Excavating, Inc. v. Lee County., CL0707-194 (Lee Co. Cir. Ct. 2015)
  • Kahn Development Co. v. Balzer and Associates, Inc., CL 12000186 (Roanoke Co. Cir. Ct. 2013)
  • Clatterbuck v. Burkett, CL 11-1952 (Roanoke Cir. Ct. 2011)
  • Allegheny Construction Co. v. Hidden Valley Villas, LLC, CL 09-1008-00 (Roanoke Co. Cir. Ct. 2011)
  • Virginian Pilot Media Cos. v. City of Norfolk, 81 Va. Cir. 450 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010)
  • C. Monroe Construction Co. v. Brice Building Co., CH 050002150 (Rockbridge Cir. Ct. 2010)
  • Times-World Corp. v. City of Radford, 79 Va. Cir. 553 (Radford Cir. Ct. 2009)
  • F&W Mgt. Corp. v. American Shelter Corp., 70 Va. Cir. 243 (Roanoke Co. Cir. Ct. 2006)
  • Carilion New River Valley Med. Ctr. v. HKS, Inc., 68 Va. Cir. 298 (Roanoke Co. Cir. Ct. 2005)
  • Krisha v. Times-World Corp., 62 Va. Cir. 33 (Roanoke Cir. Ct. 2003)
  • Lewis v. Edwards, 54 Va. Cir. 257 (Roanoke Cir. Ct. 2000)
  • A. Plymouth, Inc. v. Landmark Builders of Dublin, Inc., No. 98088 (Radford Cir. Ct. 1999)
  • Maiolo v. Beale, Balfour, Davidson, Etherington & Parker, P.C., LE-284 (Richmond Cir. Ct. 1998)
  • Linda Lee Corp. v. The Covington Co., No. 90-701 (Bedford Cir. Ct. 1993)
  • Natural Bridge of Virginia, Inc. v. Penick, No. 31-92 (Rockbridge Co. Cir. Ct. 1993)
  • Buchanan Co. School Board v. Smithey & Boynton, P.C., No 249-87 (Buchanan Co. Cir. Ct. 1992)

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

  • Bowers v. Martin, 116 F.3d 472 (4th 1997)
  • Donner v. Hodges, 110 F.3d 59 (4th 1997)
  • Avis Construction Co. v. Palma, Inc., 37 F.3d 1492 (1994)
  • Wingo v. Celotex Corp., 834 F.2d 375 (4th 1987)
  • Karana v. Jones, 833 F.2d 1005 (1987)
  • Vess v. Davis Electrical Construction, Inc., 818 F.2d 30 (4th 1987)
  • Norfolk & Western Ry v. Brotherhood, 795 F.2d 1169 (4th 1986)

Federal District Courts

  • Thompson v. Wise General Hospital, 707 F. Supp. 849 (W.D. Va. 1989)
  • Commonwealth of Virginia v. Bowen, 683 F. Supp. 148 (W.D. Va. 1988)

Federal Bankruptcy Court

  • In re Valley Steel Corp., 208 BR 388 (1997)
  • Vogel v. Costa. No. 7-85-0264 (1987)




Washington and Lee University School of Law, J.D., magna cum laude

Virginia Tech, M.S.

Virginia Tech, B.S.



U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

U.S. Court of Federal Claims

U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia

U.S. Supreme Court


  • American Bar Association, Litigation Section, Forum on the Construction Industry
  • Virginia Bar Association, Construction Law Council, Litigation Council
  • Virginia State Bar, Construction Law Section, Past Chair; Litigation Section

Other Publications & Media

  • “A Revolutionary Spark to Ignite a Flame: The Centennial of Freedom of Speech,” Virginia Lawyer Magazine, August 2019
  • “Annual Survey on Construction Law,” 43 University of Richmond Law Review 107
  • “Using the Statutory Employer Defense to Shield Contractors and Design Professionals,” Virginia Bar Journal
  • “Construction Law Damages,” Law of Damages in Virginia
  • “Disclaiming the Differing Site Condition Risk,” 23 Virginia Bar Journal 22

View More

  • “Intentional Tort Liability and the Economic Loss Rule: Novel Theories to Recover Damages Incurred on the Construction Project,” Virginia Lawyer
  • “Does Virginia’s Statute of Repose Apply to Contract Claims?” Virginia Lawyer
  • “Annual Survey on Construction Law,” 27 University of Richmond Law Review 683
  • “Annual Survey on Construction Law,” 25 University of Richmond Law Review 699
  • “Private Meetings and Good Cause Exceptions: Gulf & Western May Provide the SEC New Tools for Piercing the Corporate Attorney-Client Privilege,” 39 Washington and Lee Law Review 1225
  • “Administering the Death Penalty,” 39 Washington and Lee Law Review 101

View Less

Matter results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future matter. Some material on this site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.

Jump to Page