Home / Uncategorized (page 19)

Uncategorized

Feed Subscription

MORIN v. COMMONWEALTH

Evidence was sufficient to support appellant?s conviction of driving under the influence under both subsection (i) and (ii) of Code § 18.2-266

Read More »

NELSON v. COMMONWEALTH

Evidence was sufficient to support conviction of failure to appear as jury could infer appellant?s failure to appear was willful where appellant provided false identification when arrested, violated conditions of bond by traveling to another state, getting arrested in that state, and failed to notify Virginia authorities of his incarceration

Read More »

MORGAN v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding that Commonwealth exercised reasonable diligence to procure attendance at trial of a deported witness thus supporting determination that witness was unavailable and permitting admission of earlier transcribed testimony

Read More »

ACE TEMPORARIES v. CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA

The portion of the judgment of the trial court holding that under Code § 15.2-2286(A)(7) the text of an ordinance amendment did not have to be in written format at the time of its initiation is affirmed. The portion of the judgment of the trial court holding that the procedural requirements of that Code provision were met when enacting the contested ordinance is reversed. The case is remanded for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

Read More »

MORENCY v. COMMONWEALTH

A 2004 court order directing removal of the identifying information of a convicted violent sex offender from the Internet sex offender registry maintained by the State Police pursuant to Code § 9.1-909 was a procedural remedy that could be altered "at will" by the legislature. The order did not give the offender any vested or substantive interest preventing the reposting of his identifying information on the registry pursuant to a 2006 amendment to that Code section. Nor did the offender have an accrued right that was affected by the retroactive application of the 2006 amendment to Code § 9.1-909 for purposes of Code § 1-329. The judgment of the circuit court denying a petition by the offender to bar the posting is affirmed.

Read More »

ANDERSON v. COMMONWEALTH

The taking of a person's DNA upon arrest for certain crimes pursuant to Code § 19.2-310.2:1 does not result in an unconstitutional seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the chain of custody presumption afforded certificates of DNA analysis by Code § 19.2-187.01 is not testimonial in nature. No Confrontation Clause violation is found, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the defendant's convictions and sentences is affirmed.

Read More »

MILLER v. HIGHLAND COUNTY

In appeals challenging a county board of supervisors' approval of a conditional land use permit, it is held that the board is a required party defendant and that Code § 15.2-2232 does not create a third-party right of action to challenge a determination that a proposed land use is in ?substantial accord? with a comprehensive plan. The judgment in the first appeal is reversed and the case dismissed for failure to timely join the board. In the other appeal, summary judgment for the permit applicant and the board is affirmed because plaintiffs, adjoining landowners, failed to assert a valid request for declaratory relief.

Read More »

JOHN CRANE, INC. v. JONES (124475)

In a products liability personal injury action involving exposure to asbestos, there was no error in the trial court's application of general maritime law rather than Virginia law, in its evidentiary rulings regarding the testimony of a defendant's employee and two of the defense expert witnesses, or in its refusal to set aside the jury verdict as excessive. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Read More »

UMSTATTD v. CENTEX HOMES

Mandamus was not an appropriate remedy to compel a local land development official to accept an application for a subdivision and a preliminary subdivision plat. Declaratory judgment proceedings afford an adequate remedy to decide the mixed questions of law and fact in controversy, and to resolve the legal disputes between the parties, providing guidance to the parties in their future courses of action. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Read More »

BANKS v. MARIO INDUSTRIES

In consolidated appeals from judgments in favor of an established business claiming that certain former at-will employees and independent sales representatives conspired to harm its business via a newly-formed competing business, the trial court did not err in denying a motion to strike, submitting a breach of fiduciary duty claim to the jury, submitting a verdict form to the jury, instructing the jury, admitting a pre-resignation memorandum into evidence, or by refusing to set aside the punitive damages award. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

WEST SQUARE, L.L.C. v. COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

In litigation concerning whether a commercial lease with an attorneys' fee and cost recovery provision had been breached, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the amount of reasonable attorneys? fees to award to the landlord as the prevailing party was less than the amount claimed, but did abuse its discretion by refusing to award certain claimed costs and expenses. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and because the tenant is the prevailing party on appeal, the case is remanded to the circuit court for a determination of reasonable attorneys? fees, costs and expenses incurred by the tenant on appeal.

Read More »

NIZAN v. WELLS FARGO BANK

In a proceeding concerning the liability of a guarantor of a deed of trust note and involving application of the Uniform Commercial Code, the circuit court erred in denying him the opportunity to conduct discovery related to the defense of double recovery, in concluding that a prior settlement between the creditor and another financial institution could not, as a matter of law, constitute a double recovery for the damages the creditor sought from the guarantor, and in adopting the rationale that the defense of double recovery required a common liability instead of common damages. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

FANCHER v. FAGELLA

Injunctive relief is available under Virginia law to compel an adjoining landowner to remove a tree, the roots of which intrude into and cause significant, continuous and increasing structural damage to the plaintiff's property. The prior decision in Smith v. Holt, 174 Va. 213, 5 S.E.2d 492 (1939), is overruled insofar as it conditions a right of action upon the ?noxious? nature of such a plant. Factors to be considered in fashioning an appropriate remedy in such cases are discussed. The circuit court's order denying injunctive relief is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

PRUITT v. COMMONWEALTH

The Court of Appeals erred in upholding the judgment of the circuit court convicting a defendant of concealing a weapon "about his person" in violation of Code § 18.2-308(A) where the evidence showed that he placed a pistol in a closed console of his vehicle after a traffic accident, got out of the car, and closed the driver's door behind him with the windows in the "up" position. Because the evidence was not sufficient to show that defendant concealed the pistol "about his person," the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, the conviction is vacated, and the indictment is dismissed.

Read More »

BOOTS, INC. v. SINGH

A provision in a contract for the sale of a business and certain associated real estate making a purchaser's cash deposit non-refundable under certain circumstances was a valid liquidated damages clause. The deposit was only 3.3% of the purchase price and the purchaser offered nothing to show that this amount would be out of all proportion to any probable loss incurred by the seller due to the purchaser's failure to perform. In addition, the purchaser failed to present evidence to establish that the liquidated damages clause was an unenforceable penalty. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for entry of an order directing payment of the deposit to the seller.

Read More »

HARRIS v. COMMONWEALTH

Because a "box cutter" is not a weapon described in Code § 18.2-308(A), or a weapon of "like kind," the evidence supporting defendant's felony conviction for carrying a concealed weapon after previously having been convicted of a felony was insufficient as a matter of law. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia is reversed and the conviction is vacated.

Read More »

NEIGHBORS v. COMMONWEALTH

Under Code § 16.1-106 and Code § 8.01-677, which recognize the application of the ?writ of error coram vobis? without a limitation to any court, the appeal of the denial of a petition for writ of coram vobis in the general district court is within the jurisdiction of a circuit court under Code § 17.1-513. It was thus error for a circuit court to determine that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment of the general district court in a coram vobis proceeding filed to challenge a prior guilty plea. However, the judgment of the circuit court denying a writ of coram vobis was correct. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and final judgment is entered.

Read More »

COLLINS v. SHEPHERD

In a civil case for personal injury damages in which the circuit court sua sponte entered an order of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to a local rule providing for the dismissal of cases not served upon the defendant within one year of filing, the local rule is held invalid because it conflicts with Code §§ 8.01-335 and, therefore, the circuit court was without authority to dismiss the case pursuant to that rule. The plaintiff's failure to challenge the dismissal order until after the expiration of the twenty-one day limitation period in Rule 1:1 is no bar to review because the subject order was void ab initio, subject to challenge at any time.

Read More »

KING v. COOLEY

In a medical malpractice case, any error in the exclusion of testimony by a treating physician was harmless in light of the testimony of other witnesses and the scope of the proffered testimony. The admissibility of testimony under Code § 8.01-399(B) is addressed, and the judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

COMMONWEALTH TRANSP. COMM'R v. TARGET CORP.

In a condemnation case that resulted in a judgment in favor of the owner of a high-volume discount retail store, the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner failed to make a proffer sufficient to enable appellate review of a challenged evidentiary ruling and improperly attempted to raise new arguments for the first time on appeal. No reversible error is found and the judgment is affirmed on procedural grounds without addressing the substantive argument regarding the availability of damages for loss of real property visibility resulting from a governmental taking.

Read More »

FENTER v. NORFOLK AIRPORT AUTHORITY

In a dispute concerning the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, the trial court erred in finding that an airport authority subject to restrictions on the disclosure of sensitive security information imposed by Part 1520 of Title 49, C.F.R., complied with the Act's requirements despite failing to timely respond in the manner required by Code § 2.2-3704(B). The trial court's judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a determination of reasonable costs and attorney's fees to be awarded to the petitioner under the Act.

Read More »

ARCHITECTURAL STONE, LLC v. WOLCOTT CENTER, LLC

In an unlawful detainer action, a district court's denial of a tenant's motion to set aside a default judgment pursuant to Code § 8.01-428 is not an appealable judgment or order under Code § 16.1-106, because the ruling did not dispose of the merits of the underlying possessory action. Rather, the merits of that action were disposed of in the default judgment, which was not appealed. The circuit court's dismissal of the tenant's appeal is affirmed.

Read More »

HERON v. TRANSPORTATION CASUALTY INS. CO.

The trial court erred in ruling that insurance coverage under the MCS-90 liability endorsement required by the Federal Motor Carrier Act of 1980 only applies to accidents that occur in the course of transportation in interstate commerce and does not apply to purely intrastate activity. The contractual language contains no terms limiting coverage to the use or operation of a vehicle in interstate commerce, and such absent terms will not be read into the contract the parties made. The trial court's declaratory judgment order regarding the extent of coverage is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions.$ib

Read More »

MCCABE v. COMMONWEALTH

Requiring a convicted sex offender to comply with post-incarceration periodic reregistration requirements that were amended after the offense and trial proceedings in her particular case does not violate her substantive due process or procedural due process rights, and her equal protection claim is moot. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court dismissing her complaint challenging application of the new reregistration requirements is affirmed.

Read More »

COMMONWEALTH v. CARTER

Trial court erred in granting motion to suppress evidence obtained incident to appellee?s arrest for public drunkenness where appellee charged under city ordinance with a more narrow scope of ?in public? as officer had probable cause to arrest for public drunkenness under state statute

Read More »

VAHDAT v. HOLLAND

In a case arising from a vehicular accident, the circuit court did not err by giving a jury instruction on the "sudden emergency" doctrine containing no reference to the defendant?s evidentiary burden. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Read More »

COMMONWEALTH v. KATHERINE ELIZABETH CARTER

Trial court erred in granting motion to suppress evidence obtained incident to appellee?s arrest for public drunkenness where appellee charged under city ordinance with a more narrow scope of ?in public? as officer had probable cause to arrest for public drunkenness under state statute

Read More »

NACK v. NACK (124103)

No error in trial court?s holding that the parties? prenuptial agreement prohibits appellant from collecting attorney?s fees from appellee where agreement is clear and unambiguous that neither party is responsible for fees of the other

Read More »

FERGUSON v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court erred in convicting and sentencing appellant for malicious wounding as the indictment charged only unlawful wounding; one count of felony child neglect reversed and dismissed where evidence did not prove criminal negligence with regard to one of three siblings; one count of malicious wounding and two counts of felony child neglect affirmed

Read More »

UNINSURED EMPLOYER'S FUND v. JACK R. CHANEY

Summarily affirmed in part and dismissed in part pursuant to Rule 5A:20 where issues raised in first question presented were not part of questions presented and no argument related to specific issue raised by first question presented

Read More »

MILLER v. MILLER (124104)

No error in trial court?s findings that the parties failed to effectively revoke their antenuptial agreement and that agreement remained valid and that wife failed to prove she relied on revocation of agreement to her detriment

Read More »

KENNETH FERGUSON v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court erred in convicting and sentencing appellant for malicious wounding as the indictment charged only unlawful wounding; one count of felony child neglect reversed and dismissed where evidence did not prove criminal negligence with regard to one of three siblings; one count of malicious wounding and two counts of felony child neglect affirmed

Read More »

CHESTER E. MILLER v. LINDA S. MILLER

No error in trial court?s findings that parties failed to effectively revoke their antenuptial agreement, in accepting parol evidence on the intention of the parties, in holding that agreement dealt only with pre-marital assets of the parties, and in awarding spousal support to wife

Read More »
Scroll To Top