Don't Miss
Home / Uncategorized (page 10)

Uncategorized

Feed Subscription

MITCHELL v. COMMONWEATH (59206)

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. MITCHELL v. COMMONWEALTH NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 2313-98-1 PHILLIP ASHBY MITCHELL v. ...

Read More »

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING v. SIMMONS

In a breach of contract action arising out of foreclosure proceedings, the circuit court did not err in holding that no right to foreclose had vested in favor of a loan servicing company because it had failed to comply with pre-acceleration notice requirements contained in the deed of trust. The statutory cure provisions of Code § 55-59.1(A) also do not apply, because the issue of whether the right to accelerate is in existence and capable of being exercised by a foreclosure notice is not controlled by the statute and thus remains a matter of contract between the parties. The judgment compensating plaintiff for the equity lost as a result of the foreclosure is affirmed.

Read More »

HOLDEN v. HOLDEN

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. HOLDEN v. HOLDEN NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 2614-98-3 ROBERT CHARLES HOLDEN v. ...

Read More »

UPPER OCCOQUAN SEWAGE AUTHORITY v. BLAKE CONSTRUCTION CO.

In considering contract claims arising under the Virginia Public Procurement Act, the circuit court had jurisdiction to determine interest due under a judgment and did not err in determining that interest accrued on awarded compensatory damages, but did err in setting the applicable interest rate. The court also erred in determining that post-judgment interest accrued on the pre-judgment interest awarded in two trials and that the judgment debtor had made a timely allocation of payment on the debt; however it did not err in denying the judgment debtor's motion for satisfaction. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded.

Read More »

STEPP, et al. v. FOSTER, et al. (59416)

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. STEPP, et al. v. FOSTER, et al. January 14, 2000 Record No. 990404 ...

Read More »

HILTON v. MARTIN

In an action to recover damages for personal injury and death resulting from an assault on the victim by a fellow employee, the trial court erred in concluding that the Virginia Worker?s Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy for the claims. Applying the actual risk test, the assault on the victim had no relationship with her status as an employee. Whether intended as flirtatious, merely playful, or as harassment, the assault was purely personal and thus the resulting injury and death did not "arise out of the employment" under Code § 65.2-101. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

DOGWOD VALLEY CITIZENS ASS'N v. SHIFFLETT

In a proceeding which followed from a homeowners' association's levy of special assessments and subsequent warrants in debt against lot owners in a development, the circuit court did not err in determining that the association, a non-stock Virginia corporation, did not qualify as a property owners? association under the Property Owners? Association Act, Code §§ 55-508 through -516.2. Because the filing of the association's articles of incorporation and bylaws in the land records did not constitute a declaration imposing upon it operational or maintenance responsibilities for the common areas or roads of the development, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Read More »

AHARI v. MORRISON

In a wrongful death action, the circuit court did not err in granting the defense plea of the statute of limitations. Because Rule 1:8 requires leave of court to amend any pleading after it is filed, an amended complaint is not deemed filed, and is thus without legal efficacy, until a trial court grants leave to amend. Thus, the claims asserted against the defendants named in an amended complaint were time barred despite plaintiff having sought leave to amend three days prior to the expiration of the limitations period. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

LLOYD v. KIME

In a medical malpractice case, the trial court did not err in using deposition evidence to resolve a motion in limine and subsequent motion for summary judgment where no objection was made, or in holding that an expert witness was not qualified under Code § 8.01-581.20 to testify on standard of care and breach thereof respecting intraoperative negligence. However, it was an abuse of discretion to conclude that the expert was not qualified to testify on these issues with respect to postoperative negligence, or causation as to either allegation of negligence. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded.

Read More »

OTT v. L&J HOLDINGS

In a declaratory suit addressing whether a wife's execution of a deed should be set aside as exceeding her authority under a power of attorney, the circuit court did not err in admitting parol evidence. Credible evidence supported the findings that the deed was not a deed of gift, that it was given for a valuable consideration without donative intent, that the transfer was undertaken for legitimate business reasons, and that both spouses received benefits commensurate with their respective property interests without any self-dealing by the wife. The transaction was therefore within the powers granted by the power of attorney. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

PHELPS v. COMMONWEALTH

In a prosecution for felony eluding and endangerment in violation of Code § 46.2-817(B), the defendant was himself a "person" endangered by his own conduct and could be convicted under this section on that basis. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding his conviction is affirmed.

Read More »

JOHNSON v. TICE

In considering a habeas corpus petition, the circuit court erred in holding that petitioner satisfied his evidentiary burden in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on failure to move for suppression of his confession at trial. As a matter of law, petitioner failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability of a different result at trial if the jury had not considered the confession. The record does not undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceedings, and the assignment of cross-error regarding trial counsel's failure to offer a particular letter in evidence does not affect this decision.

Read More »

MISSION RESIDENTIAL v. TRIPLE NET PROPERTIES

In an appeal from an order denying a motion to stay arbitration proceedings pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.02(B) filed by one of the members of a member-managed limited liability company against the other member, the trial court erred in denying the motion where the party opposing it failed to meet its burden of proving the existence of an agreement in which the movant had agreed to submit its disputes with the limited liability company to arbitration. The circuit court's judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

BISHOP v. COMMONWEALTH

In a prosecution for violation of Code § 46.2-357 the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant received actual notice that he had been determined to be an habitual offender, where the transcript of the defendant's driving record failed to clearly reflect that he had received such notice. The defendant's conviction for a violation of Code § 46.2-357 is dismissed. On request of the Commonwealth and the defendant, a conviction for violation of Code § 18.2-460(C) is vacated, and a portion of the case is remanded to the circuit court for a new sentencing proceeding on the lesser included offense as set forth in Code § 18.2-460(B).

Read More »

PURCE v. PATTERSON

The trial court did not err in ruling that an estranged husband was not eligible for an elective share of the spouse's augmented estate under Code § 64.1-16.3. The record shows that both before and after the parties separated, the husband showed none of the normal indicia of supporting his spouse or of the marital relationship. The evidence was sufficient to support the trial court?s holding that he abandoned his wife prior to and continuing until the time of her death under Code § 64.1-16.3. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court that he was not eligible for an elective share of the wife's augmented estate is affirmed.

Read More »

PARKER v. COMMONWEALTH

In a prosecution for the felony of obtaining money in excess of $200 under false pretense in violation of Code § 18.2-178 by passing off fake pills in a drug transaction, the element of false inducement to part with money or property was proven by sufficient evidence and the question whether the purchaser would have parted with his money or goods without this pretense was properly a question for the jury. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction, is affirmed.

Read More »

DUTZMAN v. WOODDELL, et al.

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. DUTZMAN v. WOODDELL, et al. NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 1735-99-4 JOLEANE DUTZMAN ...

Read More »

MERCER v. COMMONWEALTH

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. MERCER v. COMMONWEALTH January 14, 2000 Record No. 990821 BRIGITTE MERCER v. COMMONWEALTH ...

Read More »

WELCH v. COMMONWEATH

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. WELCH v. COMMONWEALTH NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 1232-98-1 BRUCE ALAN WELCH v. ...

Read More »

WOODSON v. WOODSON

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. WOODSON v. WOODSON NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 1257-99-3 ANTHONY CARL WOODSON v. ...

Read More »

DOUGLAS v. COMMONWEATH

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. DOUGLAS v. COMMONWEALTH NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 1344-98-2 DWAYNE ANTHONY DOUGLAS v. ...

Read More »

ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., et al. v. PERSINGER

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., et al. v. PERSINGER NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 1505-99-2 ...

Read More »

NEW RIVER CASTINGS CO., et al. v. MAPLE

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. NEW RIVER CASTINGS CO., et al. v. MAPLE NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. ...

Read More »

WOODHOUSE v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in denying motion to suppress evidence of firearm where police officers had reasonable articulable suspicion under totality of circumstances to detain appellant and owner of vehicle gave permission for search resulting in seizure of firearm

Read More »

BAILEY v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in admitting four rocks of cocaine recovered from appellant?s accomplice?s pocket into evidence as they were legally relevant; evidence was sufficient to support conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute

Read More »

LOGAN v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in refusing to suppress out-of-court or in-court identifications of appellant based on a single photograph shown to a witness during the investigation of an unrelated crime

Read More »

HALIFAX CORPORATION v. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. HALIFAX CORPORATION v. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK June 8, 2001 Record No. 001944 ...

Read More »

BENNETT v. COMMONWEATH

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. BENNETT v. COMMONWEALTH NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 0925-98-2 ALLEN DALE BENNETT v. ...

Read More »

THE STATE v. JONES

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the South Carolina Supreme Court. THE STATE v. JONES   THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme ...

Read More »

THE STATE v. McHONEY

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the South Carolina Supreme Court. THE STATE v. McHONEY   THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme ...

Read More »

MARTIN v. MARTIN

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. MARTIN v. MARTIN NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 0129-99-4 RANDALL ALLAN MARTIN v. ...

Read More »

SHAUN ANTHONY WOODHOUSE v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Trial court did not err in denying motion to suppress evidence of firearm where police officers had reasonable articulable suspicion under totality of circumstances to detain appellant and owner of vehicle gave permission for search resulting in seizure of firearm

Read More »

MICHAEL A. BAILEY v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Trial court did not err in admitting four rocks of cocaine recovered from appellant?s accomplice?s pocket into evidence as they were legally relevant; evidence was sufficient to support conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute

Read More »

WUBNEH v. COMMONWEALTH

No error in trial court?s finding that Commonwealth presented credible and competent evidence to prove object used to intimidate victim in robbery was in fact a firearm

Read More »
Scroll To Top