Don't Miss
Home / 2005 / May

Monthly Archives: May 2005

GEORGE FISHER ROBINSON v. ELISA KENTY ROBINSON

Trial court erred when it classified the parties? assets as marital property notwithstanding its conclusion that appellant sustained his burden of proving retraceability; equitable distribution award reversed in its entirety and case remanded to trial court

Read More »

JACK M. PARRISH, III v. DIANE D. PARRISH

Trial court did not err in refusing to admit parol evidence on the issue of whether appellant intended to gift his premarital separate property interest in the marital home and in granting attorney?s fees to wife

Read More »

ROBINSON v. ROBINSON

Trial court erred when it classified the parties? assets as marital property notwithstanding its conclusion that appellant sustained his burden of proving retraceability; equitable distribution award reversed in its entirety and case remanded to trial court

Read More »

PARRISH, III v. PARRISH

Trial court did not err in refusing to admit parol evidence on the issue of whether appellant intended to gift his premarital separate property interest in the marital home and in granting attorney?s fees to wife

Read More »

TAKELE v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in convicting appellant of petit larceny of a library book as evidence was sufficient to prove asportation of the book

Read More »

HAGA v. SCHLOSBERG

Summary affirmance ? trial court did not err in granting the adoption petition as the evidence supports the trial court?s findings that appellant withheld consent contrary to the best interests of the child and that her continued relationship with the child would be detrimental

Read More »

RHODES v. COMMONWEALTH

No error in trial court?s decision, following appellant?s violation of the terms and conditions of his suspended sentences, to effectively impose an active sentence of two years in prison rather than permit appellant to participate in the detention center and diversion center programs

Read More »

MERCER v. SUPPORT SERVICES OF VIRGINIA, INC., et al.

Summary affirmance ? commission did not err in finding that claimant?s claim for additional wage loss compensation was barred by the two-year time limitation and that she was not entitled to payment for certain medical expenses because they arose from unauthorized medical treatment

Read More »

VILSECK v. VILSECK

As the contractual language of the premarital agreement is found to be ambiguous this matter is remanded to the trial court to consider additional extrinsic evidence

Read More »

SMALLWOOD v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in permitting the Commonwealth?s medical examiner to testify that the forensic evidence was not consistent with self-infliction and not consistent with a shooting during a struggle; such testimony on the record was not impermissible expert testimony as to the ultimate fact to be determined by the jury

Read More »

BROWN v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court erred in finding that the evidence proved the fair market value of the stolen property to be $200 or greater at the time of the theft; case remanded for judgment and sentencing on the lesser-included offense of petit larceny

Read More »

JACKSON v. COMMONWEALTH

No error in trial court?s denial of a continuance and refusal to admit a codefendant?s hearsay statement under the exception for statements against penal interest

Read More »

LABCORP OF AMERICA, et al. v. BEY

Summary affirmance - commission did not err in finding that appellee proved she sustained a head injury, post-traumatic stress syndrome, and psychiatric problems as a result of her June 13, 2003 compensable injury by accident

Read More »

BROWN v. VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Summary affirmance - trial court did not err in concluding that substantial evidence existed in the record to support the Virginia Retirement System?s final case decision denying appellant?s claim for disability retirement benefits

Read More »

BARNES v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial judge's decision to admit portions of the testimony concerning the deceased victim's pregnancy was harmless error; trial judge did not err in asking the jury to "revisit" the verdict forms as the trial judge was within his power to give the jury an opportunity to correct what he perceived to be a clerical error in the verdicts

Read More »
Scroll To Top