Home / Uncategorized (page 29)

Uncategorized

Feed Subscription

TBC CORPORATION v. STEPHENS

Commission?s award of medical benefits to claimant is reversed as the record fails to support the commission?s finding that the claimant proved his injury resulted from an actual risk arising out of his employment

Read More »

KERNS v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not commit reversible error as the trial court had authority under the juvenile statutes to commit appellant to the Department of Juvenile Justice for violating the terms of his probation

Read More »

HICKS v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err by denying appellant?s motion to suppress his statements to the police, admitting evidence of prior bad acts, and admitting photographs of the deceased victim and her fetus; judgment affirmed

Read More »

SLAYTON v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence sufficient to support appellant?s convictions for one count of statutory burglary, one count of aggravated malicious wounding, two counts of malicious wounding, and one count of assault and battery

Read More »

LANGE v. LANGE

Appeal dismissed as moot as husband and wife settled the dispute over the real property in their July 20, 2006 settlement agreement

Read More »

LUCIANO v. CITY OF HAMPTON

Trial court did not err in terminating appellant?s residual parental rights to his son as the department of social services presented clear and convincing evidence satisfying the statutory requirements of Code Section 16.1-283(C)(2) and establishing that termination of appellant?s residual parental rights was in the child?s best interests

Read More »

CUNNINGHAM v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial judge erred in denying the motion to suppress the evidence found in appellant?s house pursuant to the search warrant as the search warrant was not supported by probable cause; appellant?s conviction for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court

Read More »

RIDLEY v. CHESAPEAKE

As this case does not satisfy the ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18, trial court?s decision terminating appellant?s residual parental rights to his minor son is affirmed

Read More »

YAP v. COMMONWEALTH

This Court finds that the trial court did not err in not remanding this case to the district court for resolution and that the trial court did not interpret Code Sections 18.2-266 and 18.2-269 as rebuttable presumptions; appellant?s conviction is affirmed

Read More »

VICTOR GARNETTE CUNNINGHAM v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial judge erred in denying the motion to suppress the evidence found in appellant?s house pursuant to the search warrant as the search warrant was not supported by probable cause; appellant?s conviction for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court

Read More »

SOWERS v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in denying the pre-trial motion to suppress evidence pursuant to a search warrant and in applying the good faith exception of United States v. Leon; appellant?s conviction of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute is affirmed

Read More »

EDWARD YAP v. COMMONWEALTH

This Court finds that the trial court did not err in not remanding this case to the district court for resolution and that the trial court did not interpret Code Sections 18.2-266 and 18.2-269 as rebuttable presumptions; appellant?s conviction is affirmed

Read More »

CHARITY v. COMMONWEALTH

As sufficient evidence exists to find appellant guilty of the charge of conspiracy to commit escape from prison, appellant?s conviction of conspiracy is affirmed

Read More »

JOHN EUGENE SOWERS, JR. v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in denying the pre-trial motion to suppress evidence pursuant to a search warrant and in applying the good faith exception of United States v. Leon; appellant?s conviction of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute is affirmed

Read More »

CHRISTOPHER L. LUCIANO v. CITY OF HAMPTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Trial court did not err in terminating appellant?s residual parental rights to his son as the department of social services presented clear and convincing evidence satisfying the statutory requirements of Code Section 16.1-283(C)(2) and establishing that termination of appellant?s residual parental rights was in the child?s best interests

Read More »

BALDWIN v. MCCONNELL

In an assault and battery case, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering remittitur of a jury award of compensatory and punitive damages when, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the jury's award of compensatory damages was not excessive as a matter of law, and an independent review of the $100,000 punitive damages award shows that it is not shocking to the conscience or otherwise inappropriate in light of defendant's egregious conduct, and hence was not excessive as a matter of law. The judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered for plaintiff.

Read More »

JOHN C. HOLLAND ENTERPRISES v. SOUTHEASTERN PUB. SERVICE AUTH.

The trial court did not err in determining that Code § 15.2-5121(A) did not apply to a refuse collection and disposal authority created by a group of municipalities under the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act so as to require the constituent municipalities to make the findings mandated therein before the authority could begin disposing of a new type of refuse at its established landfill. Code § 15.2-5121(A) applies only to the initial decision to operate a "system" of refuse collection as defined under the Act and the service of handling a new type of refuse does not constitute the operation of a "system." The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

APAC-ATLANTIC, INC. v. GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

Under the Virginia Public Procurement Act, actions on payment bonds relating to general construction projects under contracts awarded by the Virginia Department of Transportation must be brought within the one-year limitations period contained in Code § 2.2-4341(C). Accordingly, where a plaintiff subcontractor finished work on certain roadway improvement projects more than one year before filing the present litigation, the circuit court did not err in granting the defendant surety company's motion for summary judgment and entering judgment in its favor. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Read More »

BUDD v. PUNYANITYA

In a medical malpractice case, the trial court correctly applied Code § 8.01-401.1 to bar a party from introducing certain statements contained in published medical literature because the statements had not been provided to the opposing party 30 days prior to trial. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

SELECT MANAGEMENT RESOURCES v. THE RUNNYMEDE CORP.

Under a commercial lease in which the tenant covenanted not to make any alterations or improvements without prior written permission of the landlord, painting the exterior of the leased structure with a color scheme that will cost over $18,000 to return to pre-lease condition at the end of the tenancy constituted an alteration requiring the landlord's prior permission. The judgment of the trial court denying the tenant's request for an injunction is affirmed.

Read More »

COMMONWEALTH v. RAMSDELL

Trial court?s judgment granting the motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of appellee?s car is affirmed and the case is remanded to the trial court

Read More »

PHILLIPS v. MAZYCK

The circuit court erred in sustaining a plea in bar and ordering the parties to arbitrate a plaintiff?s personal injury claim because the record failed to establish that the parties mutually assented to the terms of a purported arbitration agreement. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a trial on the merits.

Read More »

JORDAN v. COMMONWEALTH

Because the evidence was insufficient to sustain an accused's convictions of possession with the intent to distribute a Schedule I controlled substance in violation of Code § 18.2-248 and felonious obstruction of justice in violation of Code § 18.2-460(C), the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia is reversed and the indictments are dismissed.

Read More »

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY v. PETA

In protracted civil litigation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing monetary sanctions against six attorneys and their law firms under Code § 8.01-271.1 for filing unfounded motions to vacate a rule to show cause and seeking recusal of the trial judge. Nor was there error in revoking the pro hac vice admission of one of those attorneys. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

SEYMOUR v. CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

In litigation concerning a municipality's consideration of a re-subdivision application involving a residential neighborhood lot, the trial court correctly ruled that the controlling ordinance provision did not permit the municipality to consider improvements intended for the affected property, but erred in affirming the municipality's disapproval of the application. The trial court's judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for entry of an appropriate order.

Read More »

CONLEY v. COMMONWEALTH

In an appeal arising from a prosecution for abduction with intent to defile and forcible sodomy, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the trial court did not err in allowing a licensed clinical social worker to testify as an expert witness regarding her diagnosis that the crime victim suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Read More »

REIFMAN v. GORSEN (ORDER)

There is no reversible error in the judgment of the Circuit Court in a medical malpractice action in which plaintiff's counsel did not move the court to admit a particular exhibit until after the evidence was closed, the parties had rested, an alternate juror had been excused, the court had instructed the jury, and the jury had retired to consider its verdict. Even if the exhibit might properly have been admitted into evidence, the trial court was given no timely opportunity to do so. A motion to admit evidence after the evidence has been closed comes too late. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »
Scroll To Top