Home / Uncategorized (page 26)

Uncategorized

Feed Subscription

ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

In a dispute regarding zoning ordinance provisions applicable to a lawful nonconforming billboard, the circuit court correctly upheld a board of zoning appeals (BZA) determination that the billboard's owner had structurally altered and enlarged it by installing an electronic message board component and that, as a result, the ordinance required removal of the entire billboard. The modification increased the depth and weight of the billboard, and the BZA's determination did not involve application of erroneous principles of law and was not plainly wrong or in violation of the intent and purpose of the ordinance. The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

ROBINSON v. COMMONWEALTH

Applying the rule of strict construction of penal laws, the driver of a vehicle is "involved" in an accident triggering an obligation to remain at the scene and provide information under Code § 46.2-894 only if there is physical contact between the driver's vehicle and another vehicle, person, or object, or if the defendant driver was a proximate cause of an accident. Since the present defendant's vehicle had no physical contact with that of the accident victim, and defendant was not a cause of the accident, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the conviction for violation of Code § 46.2-894 is dismissed.

Read More »

PEERLESS INSURANCE CO. v. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX

In a suit seeking to allocate financial responsibility between insurance companies and a county concerning a personal injury involving a storm water detention easement, the trial court did not err in sustaining the county's demurrers and plea in bar. Code § 15.2-970 applies to the easement, and there was no written contract between the county and the insurers as required by this statute. In addition, judicial estoppel did not apply regarding the county's factual positions as to the nature, ownership, and maintenance of the easement, and the breach of implied contract and breach of express contract claims were time-barred. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

CLIFFORD v. COMMONWEALTH (ORDER)

In a sex crimes case, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court should have granted a defense motion to permit cross-examination of the victim regarding a prior alleged false accusation of sexual molestation she had made against another. The defendant abandoned his argument supporting such cross examination by failing to assert it on appeal and also failed to object to the specific basis of the trial court's denial of his motion; thus, the theory presented in the argument which formed the basis of the Court of Appeals' ruling was not properly before that Court. The Court of Appeals' judgment is reversed and the case remanded to that court with directions.

Read More »

GRANDISON v. COMMONWEALTH

In a cocaine possession prosecution, the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained in an unlawful seizure when ? in the absence of other circumstances indicating criminal activity ? the officer removed a folded one-dollar bill from the defendant's pocket and opened it to reveal drugs. The Court of Appeals' judgment affirming the trial court disposition is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to remand the case to the trial court for a new trial if the Commonwealth be so advised.

Read More »

GRAY v. COMMONWEALTH

In an appeal of defendant's multiple capital murder convictions and two death sentences arising from the stabbing, beating and arson killings of a couple and their two minor children in the course of a robbery, no reversible error is found in the judgment of the circuit court, and no reason is found to commute or set aside the sentences of death. The judgment of the circuit court, including the sentences of death, is affirmed.

Read More »

MARK FIVE CONSTRUCTION v. CASTLE CONTRACTORS

In an indemnity action for the benefit of a contractor's insurer against an "intermediate contractor" arising from payments made to an injured worker, the circuit court did not err in sustaining the defendants' demurrer because a party can only seek indemnification under Code § 65.2-304 from persons who would have been liable to pay compensation under the Act and thus are subject to jurisdiction under the Act. Plaintiff did not allege that the defendant contracting company was such a person and, as a matter of law, cannot make that showing. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Read More »

BBF, INC. v. ALSTOM POWER, INC.

The claim that an arbitration award of liquidated damages violated the public policy of Virginia did not state a ground for vacating an arbitration award under the governing provisions of Code § 8.01-581.010. Therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to vacate the arbitration award, and its judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

COMMITTEE OF PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NORFOLK

In proceedings relating to a referendum petition seeking a repeal of four city ordinances, the circuit court did not err in allowing a city and a redevelopment authority to intervene, but erred in concluding that the petition did not comply with the requirements of the referendum process. The petition was not invalid because it listed more than one challenged ordinance and separate petitions for each challenged ordinance were not required. That portion of the judgment holding that the petition was invalid is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

AUGUSTA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MASON

In an insurance company's third-party action for damages arising out of an insurance agent?s allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the condition of a dwelling that the insurance company agreed to insure, because the only duties allegedly violated by the agent emanate exclusively from the parties? preexisting contractual relationship, the insurer failed to properly state claims for either fraud in the inducement or breach of fiduciary duty. The circuit court?s judgment sustaining demurrers and dismissing the insurer?s third-party claim with prejudice is affirmed.

Read More »

KOPALCHICK v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND

Because a church diocese is not a ?natural person,? the statute of limitations accrual provisions relating to sexual abuse in Code § 8.01-249(6) have no effect upon the constitutionally protected right of the diocese to rely on the bar of the statute of limitations. The judgment of the circuit court dismissing a case involving alleged childhood sexual abuse decades before the suit was filed is affirmed.

Read More »

MILES v. COMMONWEALTH (ORDER)

Upon considering the Commonwealth's petition for rehearing regarding the prior decision of this appeal reported in Miles v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 302, 634 S.E.2d 330 (2007), the Court is of the opinion that its judgment reversing the judgment of the circuit court should not be set aside and should stand as issued. Accordingly, the Commonwealth's petition requesting that the defendant be classified as a sexually violent predator and subjected to civil commitment under the Sexually Violent Predators Act is dismissed with prejudice. (<a href="http://www.courts.state.va.us:80/opinions/opnscvwp/1052568.pdf">See the Opinion, Miles v. Commonwealth, dated September 15, 2006</a>)

Read More »

SETTLEMENT FUNDING v. VON NEUMANN-LILLIE

In a suit arising out of a loan transaction, the circuit court erred in refusing to apply the law of the jurisdiction stipulated in the choice of law provision of the loan contract and in its application of Virginia's usury law to the provisions of that contract. Since the trial court was provided with sufficient information regarding the substance of chosen state's law, it erred in refusing to apply that law in the construction of the loan agreement. Those portions of the judgments of the circuit court entering judgment in favor of the borrower based on her claim of usury under Code § 6.1-330.57 and awarding her damages, costs and attorneys' fees under that statute are reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

DALE STANLEY TRUCKING v. SMITH

Summary affirmance ? no error in commission?s finding that the panel of physicians offered by employer to claimant was defective and employer was liable for payment of medical treatment provided to claimant

Read More »

JOWAYNE ALSTON v. COMMONWEALTH

No error in trial court?s denial of appellant?s motion to suppress the concealed weapon found in the passenger compartment of his vehicle; appellant?s convictions are affirmed

Read More »

ALSTON v. COMMONWEALTH

No error in trial court?s denial of appellant?s motion to suppress the concealed weapon found in the passenger compartment of his vehicle; appellant?s convictions are affirmed

Read More »

GAYE v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence was sufficient to convict appellant of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute; appellant?s conviction is affirmed

Read More »

ROBERTSON v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court erred by denying appellant?s motion to suppress as no exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless entry; judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded

Read More »

HAYTON v. HAYTON

Appeal dismissed; as no final order was entered by the trial court in this case, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal

Read More »

BATTLE v. CITY OF PORTSMOUTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence was sufficient to terminate appellant?s residual parental rights under to Code Section 16.1-283(B); judgment affirmed

Read More »

BROWN v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence was sufficient to support appellant?s conviction of grand larceny; this Court finds the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court?s venue findings; appellant?s conviction is affirmed

Read More »

LOUIS LATOUR, INC. v. VIRGINIA ABC BOARD

Trial court did not err in applying the appropriate standard of review, in finding that appellant unilaterally amended the parties? agreement without good cause, in finding that appellant discriminated against appellee, in finding that appellant acted in bad faith, in fashioning an appropriate remedy under Code Section 4.1-409, and in awarding attorney?s fees; judgment affirmed

Read More »
Scroll To Top