Home / Uncategorized (page 33)

Uncategorized

Feed Subscription

JESSIE WAYNE ABELL v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court erred in finding the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant willfully failed to appear; appellant?s conviction of felony failure to appear is reversed and the indictment is dismissed

Read More »

PARMANN v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony as the witness testified within the scope of his training and expertise as an operator of the testing equipment; judgment affirmed

Read More »

POWELL v. COMMONWEALTH

Appellant?s conviction for driving with a revoked license while a habitual offender is affirmed as appellant did not show that the underlying order adjudicating him as a habitual offender was void

Read More »

WINSTON v. WARDEN (UNPUBLISHED ORDER)

Upon consideration of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, respondent's motion to dismiss the petition is granted. Petitioner's various claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel are rejected as not satisfying the two-pronged test enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and his remaining claims are rejected as lacking merit or as being either procedurally barred or improperly raised.

Read More »

SMITH v. THORNTON-SMITH

Judgment pertaining to the rulings classifying the Arlington and Berryville properties and the award of attorney?s fees to appellee are affirmed; judgment pertaining to the classification of the Volkswagen is reversed and this matter is remanded to the trial court to reexamine the equitable distribution award

Read More »

SPROUSE v. ORANGE COUNTY

No error in trial court?s decision terminating appellant?s residual parental rights to his minor son pursuant to Code Section 16.1-283(C)(1) and 16.1-283(C)(2)

Read More »

DERRICK JAMES WILLIAMS v. COMMONWEALTH

Appellant?s convictions are affirmed as this Court holds that the informant?s tip provided the police with the requisite probable cause to arrest appellant and that the police did not need exigent circumstances in addition to probable cause for appellant?s arrest

Read More »

TURNER v. COMMONWEALTH

Circuit court erred in amending the warrant to charge driving under the influence, second or subsequent offense after appellant had been acquitted of that charge in a court of competent jurisdiction; judgment is reversed, appellant?s conviction for DUI second offense is set aside, and the case is remanded for resentencing on the conviction of driving under the influence, first offense

Read More »

REYES v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in refusing to admit the state of mind testimony and in refusing to admit testimony regarding appellant?s money and jewelry; appellant?s convictions for first-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony are affirmed

Read More »

KENNETH WAYNE TURNER v. COMMONWEALTH

Circuit court erred in amending the warrant to charge driving under the influence, second or subsequent offense after appellant had been acquitted of that charge in a court of competent jurisdiction; judgment is reversed, appellant?s conviction for DUI second offense is set aside, and the case is remanded for resentencing on the conviction of driving under the influence, first offense

Read More »

COLOCCIA v. COLOCCIA

Trial court?s refusal to set aside the property settlement agreement is affirmed as the evidence supports the trial court?s finding that husband failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was incompetent when he executed the property settlement agreement

Read More »

ROLAND WILLIAMS, JR. v. COMMONWEALTH

As appellant did not provide a sufficient proffer for this Court to determine whether the trial court erred in refusing to permit the cross-examination questions, appellant?s conviction of armed robbery is affirmed

Read More »

LOWELL F. SMITH v. ALICE L. THORNTON-SMITH

Judgment pertaining to the rulings classifying the Arlington and Berryville properties and the award of attorney?s fees to appellee are affirmed; judgment pertaining to the classification of the Volkswagen is reversed and this matter is remanded to the trial court to reexamine the equitable distribution award

Read More »

JORGE LUIS REYES v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in refusing to admit the state of mind testimony and in refusing to admit testimony regarding appellant?s money and jewelry; appellant?s convictions for first-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony are affirmed

Read More »

WILLIAMS v. COMMONWEALTH

Appellant?s convictions are affirmed as this Court holds that the informant?s tip provided the police with the requisite probable cause to arrest appellant and that the police did not need exigent circumstances in addition to probable cause for appellant?s arrest

Read More »

WINKLER v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence sufficient to support appellant?s convictions of two counts of robbery and two counts of using a firearm in the commission of a felony

Read More »

WILLIAMS v. COMMONWEALTH (122760)

As appellant did not provide a sufficient proffer for this Court to determine whether the trial court erred in refusing to permit the cross-examination questions, appellant?s conviction of armed robbery is affirmed

Read More »

C. GIVENS BROTHERS, L.L.C. v. TOWN OF BLACKSBURG (ORDER)

The circuit court did not err in finding that a limited liability company's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel a municipality's construction of sewer lines to its property, which the municipality had previously annexed, was barred by the statute of limitations. Prior case law does not limit the application of a statute of limitations to such a petition on the basis of the relief sought therein, and since the limited liability company's cause of action accrued, at the latest date, in November of 1985, regardless of which statute of limitations applies in the case at bar, the petition, filed approximately 20 years later, was not timely.

Read More »

TABOADA v. DALY SEVEN (ORDER)

Upon considering a petition for rehearing regarding the prior decision of this appeal reported at Taboada v. Daly Seven, Inc., 271 Va. 313, 626 S.E.2d 428 (2006), the Court is of the opinion that its judgment should not be set aside. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court sustaining the defendant innkeeper's demurrer to the plaintiff guest's claim under Code § 35.1-28 is affirmed, but its judgment sustaining the innkeeper's demurrer to the guest's common law negligence claim is reversed and the case is remanded for a trial on the merits thereof.

Read More »

PARIKH v. FAMILY CARE CENTER, INC.

Judgment for the plaintiff medical care center, a non-professional corporation, in a suit to enforce a covenant not to compete given by a physician it formerly employed is reversed because a non-professional corporation cannot engage in the practice of medicine in the Commonwealth. As a result, plaintiff has no legitimate business interest in enforcing the covenant not to compete against the physician following the termination of his employment. The judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered in favor of the physician.

Read More »

JOHNSON v. COMMONWEALTH

In an appeal raising various issues concerning the Court of Appeals? consideration and dismissal of a petition for a writ of actual innocence based on non-biological evidence under Code §§ 19.2-327.10 through -327.14, involving recantation of evidence provided at a murder trial by a co-defendant, the Court of Appeals did not err in concluding that the petitioner failed to meet his statutory burden of proof. The judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition is affirmed.

Read More »

LAMBERT v. JAVED

In a wrongful death and breach of warranty action arising from medical treatment of the decedent, the trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's case because of a prior final order dismissing the same cause of action with prejudice based on a plea of the statute of limitations. The dismissal with prejudice of a prior case on the basis of the statute of limitations was an adjudication on a substantive element of the cause of action, thereby directly supporting the doctrine of res judicata. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

RAYTHEON TECHNICAL SERVICES CO. v. HYLAND

In a defamation case, the judgment must be reversed because three of the five allegedly actionable statements are expressions of opinion, not fact, and therefore, should not have been submitted to the jury. Because the record does not reflect which statement or statements formed the basis of the jury verdict and the other grounds for reversal raised by the defendants are not dispositive in the posture of this case, the verdict is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. v. GAUTHIER

In an insurance coverage dispute concerning the insurer's denial of a loss claim for the sinking of a boat, the trial court's findings that the loss was caused by the negligence of the insured in failing to close the boat's seacock valve, and that such negligence did not fall within the exclusions to the policy, are neither plainly wrong nor without evidence to support them. Accordingly, pursuant to Code § 8.01-680, the trial court's judgment will not be disturbed, and it is therefore affirmed.

Read More »

TABOADA v. DALY SEVEN (ORDER) (123157)

Upon considering a petition for rehearing regarding the prior decision of this appeal reported at Taboada v. Daly Seven, Inc., 271 Va. 313, 626 S.E.2d 428 (2006), the Court is of the opinion that its judgment should not be set aside. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court sustaining the defendant innkeeper's demurrer to the plaintiff guest's claim under Code &sect; 35.1-28 is affirmed, but its judgment sustaining the innkeeper's demurrer to the guest's common law negligence claim is reversed and the case is remanded for a trial on the merits thereof. (<a href="http://www.courts.state.va.us:80/#051094">See the Opinion, Taboada v. Daly Seven, Inc., dated March 3, 2006</a>)

Read More »

SWITZER v. SWITZER

The Court of Appeals abused its discretion in summarily dismissing divorce and custody appeals brought of right by an indigent pro se litigant based on its prior order barring him from filing future appeals until he paid a $500 judgment entered against him pursuant to Code § 8.01-271.1 as a sanction for filing a frivolous appeal in another custody case involving his son. The order was not narrowly tailored to correct the problem of frivolous filings, and summary dismissal was an unduly severe sanction depriving him of the statutory right to consideration of the appeals. The judgments are reversed and the cases are remanded.

Read More »

DOHERTY v. ALECK

In a malpractice case against a podiatrist, the evidence was clearly sufficient to make a jury issue of whether the surgery performed upon the plaintiff was a proximate cause of the amputation of his toe. The jury?s verdict was supported by credible evidence, and the trial court erred in setting the verdict aside. Issues concerning testimony to a reasonable degree of medical probability, waiver of objections, and proximate causation are discussed. The jury?s verdict is reinstated, and final judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff.

Read More »

COMMONWEALTH v. EPPS

Criminal contempt victimizes the court as an institution, as opposed to individual members thereof. Thus, in the appeal of the conviction of a city sheriff for criminal contempt and an order finding him in civil contempt, the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that a circuit court judge was not a "victim" of contempt of court as contemplated by Code § 19.2-271 and that she was therefore incompetent to testify in the contempt trial. The Court of Appeals' judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

MCDOWELL v. COMMONWEALTH

In prosecutions for grand larceny under Code §§ 18.2-95 and 18.2-108.01(A), the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence a computer report generated by a retailer's loss prevention officer after using its automatic inventory database system that specified the items taken in a shoplifting incident, their quantities, and their selling prices. Under the circumstances, the report qualified as a business record under the Shopbook Rule. The Court of Appeals' judgment approving the trial court?s ruling admitting the report and upholding the convictions is affirmed.

Read More »

CARPITCHER v. COMMONWEALTH

The Court of Appeals? dismissal of a petition for a writ of actual innocence based on non-biological evidence, in which a petitioner sought relief based on recantation evidence provided by the victim of the crimes who had given contrary testimony at petitioner?s original trial, correctly applied the statutory provisions governing such petitions, Code §§ 19.2-327.10 through -327.14. There was no abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals in evaluating the evidence presented, and the judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

NUSBAUM v. BERLIN

On appeal from the imposition of a monetary sanction against an attorney for misconduct during a jury trial consisting of an award of attorneys? fees and costs to the opposing parties, a finding that the attorney was guilty of criminal contempt of court in violation of Code § 18.2-456(1), and imposition of a fine of $250 pursuant to Code § 18.2-457, the circuit court?s judgment is reversed in part and vacated, because a trial court?s inherent authority to discipline an attorney does not include the power to assess attorneys? fees and costs incurred by an adverse party. The judgment convicting the attorney of contempt of court and imposing the fine is affirmed.

Read More »

BELTON v. CRUDUP

In rejecting a petition to establish a parent-child relationship with a decedent whose estate is pending, the circuit court did not err in applying the requirements set forth in Code § 64.1-5.1(4) for a child born out of wedlock to share in the distribution of a putative parent?s estate. The sole act of filing a list of heirs identifying petitioner as decedent?s child did not toll the period during which an action seeking adjudication of the existence of the parent-child relationship was required to have been filed, and the petitioner cannot, as a matter of law, share in the settlement of the estate because no such action was commenced within one year of the decedent's death. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »
Scroll To Top