Home / Uncategorized (page 30)

Uncategorized

Feed Subscription

MARTIN v. HOWARD

A trial court's order of exhumation rendered pursuant to Code § 32.1-286(C) in order to facilitate DNA testing by a woman claiming to be the daughter of the decedent was not in error. The General Assembly expressly provided that the need of a qualified illegitimate child to prove parentage for the purpose of inheritance is sufficient cause for exhumation. The order is affirmed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Read More »

COMMONWEALTH v. MILLER

In a proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predators Act, Code §§ 37.2-900 et seq., the circuit court erred in permitting testimony from a particular expert witness for the prisoner, who was qualified in the diagnosis and assessment of sex offenders, but was not shown to be skilled in the treatment of such individuals, as plainly required by the Act. The court further erred in concluding that the Commonwealth failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is a sexually violent predator as defined by the Act. The judgment is reversed, final judgment is entered in favor of the Commonwealth, and the case is remanded for further proceedings under the Act.

Read More »

TELEGUZ v. COMMONWEALTH

In an appeal from defendant's conviction for capital murder for hire, and imposition of the death sentence, after review of numerous assignments of error and completion of the statutorily-mandated review of the imposition of the death penalty, no error is found, and no grounds for setting aside or commuting the sentence of death. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Read More »

ALEXANDRIA CITY COUNCIL v. MIRANT POTOMAC RIVER

The circuit court did not err in declaring an amendment to a city's zoning ordinance invalid and reinstating two auxiliary special use permits issued to a power company that operates a coal-burning electricity generating plant. The amendment violated Code § 15.2-2307 because it impaired an established vested right to operate the plant, and the revocation of the two auxiliary special use permits pursuant to the amendment was unlawful. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Read More »

WASHINGTON v. COMMONWEALTH

Defendant's conviction for obstruction of justice in violation of Code § 18.2-460(C) is reversed because the Commonwealth failed to prove that, at the time of the defendant's acts, the law enforcement officer to whom the acts were directed was discharging duties related to a violation of or conspiracy to violate one of the various felony offenses listed in the statute. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia is reversed and the indictment is dismissed.

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 »

COLLEGIATE FUNDING SERVICES v. CONWAY

Commission did not err in awarding benefits to appellee as there was credible evidence to support the commission?s finding that appellee?s disability was causally related to her compensable accident

Read More »

LARA v. COMMONWEALTH

As appellant failed to adequately preserve his arguments in the trial court, appellant?s convictions for criminal gang participation and malicious wounding are affirmed

Read More »

CHRISTINE HENLEY v. GERMAINE MCGIRT

Judgment of the trial court is affirmed as the trial court never heard the parties on the questions presented on appeal, and appellant failed to rebut the presumptive verity of the trial court?s order

Read More »

CALVIN JOJUAN BELL v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in permitting a forensic scientist to refer to the certificate of analysis during his testimony to refresh his recollection, in admitting the certificate of analysis into evidence, or in allowing the forensic scientist to testify as an expert regarding his analysis; judgment of the trial court affirmed

Read More »

JANET MILLER-JENKINS v. LISA MILLER-JENKINS

Trial court erred in ruling that a Vermont order concerning child custody and visitation between the parties could not be registered in Virginia; trial court?s March 1, 2006 order is vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court with instruction to enter an order allowing appellant to register the Vermont order in Virginia

Read More »

BENNETT v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in determining that a judge was competent to testify as to the matter he observed; evidence was sufficient to support appellant?s conviction of disorderly conduct

Read More »

DONNA BLANTON v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in refusing to grant appellant?s proposed jury Instructions 13, 14, and 15 on circumstantial evidence; trial court did err in denying appellant?s Batson motion based on gender with regard to the Commonwealth?s five peremptory strikes; judgment is affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and case remanded

Read More »

HENLEY v. MCGIRT

Judgment of the trial court is affirmed as the trial court never heard the parties on the questions presented on appeal, and appellant failed to rebut the presumptive verity of the trial court?s order

Read More »

CHARLES BENNETT v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in determining that a judge was competent to testify as to the matter he observed; evidence was sufficient to support appellant?s conviction of disorderly conduct

Read More »

MILLER-JENKINS v. MILLER-JENKINS

Trial court erred in ruling that a Vermont order concerning child custody and visitation between the parties could not be registered in Virginia; trial court?s March 1, 2006 order is vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court with instruction to enter an order allowing appellant to register the Vermont order in Virginia

Read More »

TAYLOR v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence sufficient to convict appellant of distribution of cocaine; appellant?s conviction is affirmed

Read More »

BELL v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in permitting a forensic scientist to refer to the certificate of analysis during his testimony to refresh his recollection, in admitting the certificate of analysis into evidence, or in allowing the forensic scientist to testify as an expert regarding his analysis; judgment of the trial court affirmed

Read More »

BLANTON v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in refusing to grant appellant?s proposed jury Instructions 13, 14, and 15 on circumstantial evidence; trial court did err in denying appellant?s Batson motion based on gender with regard to the Commonwealth?s five peremptory strikes; judgment is affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and case remanded

Read More »

LPT INC v. VOLTAGGIO

Commission did not err in determining that claimant?s efforts were legally sufficient to constitute a cure of his unjustified refusal of selective employment; decision of the commission is affirmed

Read More »

COMMONWEALTH v. BLEVINS

As appellee does not have standing to challenge the search of the vehicle, trial court?s judgment granting the motion to suppress is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court

Read More »

COMMONWEALTH v. WANDA ALICE BLEVINS

As appellee does not have standing to challenge the search of the vehicle, trial court?s judgment granting the motion to suppress is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court

Read More »
Scroll To Top