Home / Uncategorized (page 38)

Uncategorized

Feed Subscription

JOHN EDWARD STEWART v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when the Commonwealth failed to disclose exculpatory information until after the presentation of appellant?s evidence; appellant?s convictions are reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court

Read More »

SHIRLEY ANN FLOWERS v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence was sufficient to support appellant?s conviction of reckless endangerment as appellant?s willful act of failing to secure prompt medical attention for juveniles in her charge satisfies the requirement of a ?willful act? in ?reckless disregard for human life,? as required by Code Section 18.2-371.1(B)(1); appellant?s conviction is affirmed

Read More »

FLOWERS v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence was sufficient to support appellant?s conviction of reckless endangerment as appellant?s willful act of failing to secure prompt medical attention for juveniles in her charge satisfies the requirement of a ?willful act? in ?reckless disregard for human life,? as required by Code Section 18.2-371.1(B)(1); appellant?s conviction is affirmed

Read More »

NERO v. WILLIAMS

Circuit court erred in dismissing appellant?s appeal as appellant was not required to post an appeal bond when he appealed the juvenile and domestic relations district court order in this case; judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court

Read More »

COMMONWEALTH v. ZACEK

Trial court did not err in granting appellee?s motion for summary judgment by extending full faith and credit to the Illinois judgment

Read More »

AIRHART v. COMMONWEALTH

Appellant?s conviction for harassment by computer in violation of Code Section 18.2-152.7:1 is reversed and the indictment is dismissed as the evidence was insufficient to prove appellant?s communication was obscene

Read More »

FOSTER v. COMMONWEALTH

This Court holds that appellant?s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to conduct an in camera review of the police report for ?hypothetical? inconsistencies, and that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by refusing to participate in appellant?s courtroom experiment; appellant?s convictions are affirmed

Read More »

SNEAD v. CITY OF HAMPTON

Summary affirmance ? trial court did not err in terminating appellant?s parental rights to her child pursuant to Code Section 16.1-283(B) and (C)

Read More »

STEWART v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when the Commonwealth failed to disclose exculpatory information until after the presentation of appellant?s evidence; appellant?s convictions are reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court

Read More »

ONDRAKE HAYWOOD NERO v. SHERRI C. WILLIAMS

Circuit court erred in dismissing appellant?s appeal as appellant was not required to post an appeal bond when he appealed the juvenile and domestic relations district court order in this case; judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court

Read More »

ALEX VAUGHAN AIRHART v. COMMONWEALTH

Appellant?s conviction for harassment by computer in violation of Code Section 18.2-152.7:1 is reversed and the indictment is dismissed as the evidence was insufficient to prove appellant?s communication was obscene

Read More »

METKEL ALANA, A/K/A KENNETH FOSTER v. COMMONWEALTH

This Court holds that appellant?s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to conduct an in camera review of the police report for ?hypothetical? inconsistencies, and that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by refusing to participate in appellant?s courtroom experiment; appellant?s convictions are affirmed

Read More »

WEST v. DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

A writ of habeas corpus is granted on a claim for denial of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel based on the failure of petitioner's trial attorney to raise a double jeopardy challenge to convictions of both aggravated involuntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter, and the "concurrent sentencing doctrine" is rejected as a basis for denying petitioner relief from the latter conviction. The petitioner's common law involuntary manslaughter conviction and sentence are vacated, and the remainder of the petition is dismissed.

Read More »

BAILEY v. TURNBOW

In an action by an executrix of a decedent's estate to invalidate a deed of gift for real property made shortly before death, the evidence was insufficient to establish a confidential relationship between the decedent and the donee and thus no presumption of undue influence arose. Without such a presumption the chancellor's decision setting the deed aside on the ground that it had been procured by undue influence was unsupported by the evidence. The decree is reversed and final judgment is entered.

Read More »

ALMY v. GRISHAM

The trial court erred in dismissing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress upon demurrer by several defendants, where the plaintiff had alleged facts sufficient to satisfy the elements of such claim with respect to these defendants. However, a plaintiff may not assert a cause of action in Virginia for civil conspiracy to intentionally inflict severe emotional distress; thus, the trial court did not err in dismissing this claim with respect to all of the defendants. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded.

Read More »

MCGUIRE v. HODGES

In a wrongful death action, the trial court erred in setting aside a jury verdict for the plaintiff where circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the decision reached by the jury that defendant's negligence was probably, rather than merely possibly, a proximate cause of a child's death. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, the jury's verdict is reinstated, and final judgment is entered for the plaintiff.

Read More »

PARKER v. WARREN

In this personal injury action, the trial court erred in concluding that Code § 8.01-229(B)(2)(b) contained a "scrivener's error" and could not be applied as written. There is no "scrivener's error" in this Code provision, and it does not apply to a motion for judgment filed against a defendant who later dies. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

AFZALL v. COMMONWEALTH

In a declaratory judgment action by an injured minor seeking a determination that the Commonwealth?s lien arising from Medicaid benefits provided in his treatment should be reduced by the legal fees and costs he incurred in obtaining the settlement of a negligence case against a third-party tortfeasor for causing the injuries, the bar of sovereign immunity applies because the Commonwealth has not waived that defense in the context of a declaratory judgment action within the purview of Code § 8.01-66.9. Thus the trial court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate this claim. The appeal is dismissed and final judgment is entered in favor of the Commonwealth.

Read More »

MONA v. CRANSTON (ORDER)

Under former law, a general district court judgment became unenforceable after the judgment creditor failed to file for extension of its effect by motion in the general district court within 10 years of the date on which the judgment was rendered. Docketing the judgment in circuit court was not sufficient to render it a judgment of the circuit court under the mandatory requirements of the then-applicable statutory provisions. The judgment appealed from is reversed and final judgment is entered in favor of the judgment debtor.

Read More »

COMMONWEALTH v. BURNS

In a wrongful death case in which the negligence of Virginia Department of Transportation personnel working on the shoulder of a public highway allegedly caused the death of a motorcyclist, the public duty doctrine does not bar a claim of negligence or gross negligence against a public employee. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed upon interlocutory appeal, and the case is remanded.

Read More »

CONYERS v. MARTIAL ARTS WORLD

The judgment of the circuit court that a particular martial arts instruction program for children, which qualifies as a ?child day program? generally subject to licensure by the Virginia Department of Social Services, is exempt from licensure is reversed because of an erroneous interpretation of the ?come and go? exemption set forth in Code § 63.2-1715(A)(2). Because a determination is required whether the subject program actually complied with its written policy that children may enter and leave its premises without permission or supervision in order to determine whether the exemption from licensure under Code § 63.2-1715(A)(2) applies, the case is remanded.

Read More »

WARD v. COMMONWEALTH

The trial court did not err in refusing to grant defendant?s motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to an anticipatory search warrant issued for a physical address other than the address shown on a suspicious parcel found to contain illegal drugs. None of the circumstances recognized in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), for excluding application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply under the facts presented. The Court of Appeals' judgment approving the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

CLINE v. BERG

In a suit for an injunction requiring removal of a 32-foot high, 200-foot long fence constructed of utility poles and plastic wrap which allegedly interfered unreasonably with plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his real property, the circuit court abused its discretion in granting injunctive relief to the plaintiff because it failed to apply the "clean hands" doctrine. For that reason, the circuit court?s judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered for the defendants.

Read More »

KUZNICKI v. MASON

In a suit by condominium unit owners involving a limited common element, under Code §§ 55-79.53(A) and -79.80(B) only a condominium unit owners? association has standing to sue for claims related to common elements and limited common elements. As a result, the circuit court erred by failing to address the standing issue asserted by the defendants, but nevertheless properly dismissed the plaintiff's complaint; therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

FARRAKHAN v. COMMONWEALTH

The trial court erred in finding a criminal defendant guilty of possession of a concealed weapon described in Virginia Code § 18.2-308(A), having previously been convicted of a felony offense. The kitchen knife the defendant possessed was not a "weapon" because it was neither designed for fighting purposes nor commonly understood to be a "weapon." The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the defendant's conviction is vacated.

Read More »

ROBINSON v. COMMONWEALTH

In the prosecution of a husband and wife on multiple counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor under Code § 18.2-371 arising from a party held at their home at which alcohol was served to their underage son and his guests, the trial court did not err in denying the defendants' motions to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search and seizure occurring within the curtilage of their home. Exigent circumstances existed, the investigating officer had probable cause to justify his entry into the curtilage, and he did not exceed the scope of implied consent to such entry. The Court of Appeals' judgment upholding the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

CROCKER v. RIVERSIDE BRICK & SUPPLY CO.

A truck driver employed by a shipping company engaged by a supplier of masonry products to deliver stone to a customer is not barred by the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act from bringing a personal injury claim against the customer since this defendant is an "other party" within the meaning of the Act. The shipping company's driver was not the defendant's statutory employee because, even though she endeavored to assist in unloading the pallets of stone, the unloading of the freight was the sole responsibility of the defendant. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

ELLISON v. COMMONWEALTH

In a civil proceeding under Code § 37.2-900 et seq., the Commonwealth alleged that an inmate previously convicted of a sexual crime was a sexually violent predator. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel and the constitutional protections against double jeopardy, the trial court did not err by admitting into evidence in the civil trial evidence from a rape victim in a criminal case where the defendant had been acquitted. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

WESTLAKE PROPERTIES v. WESTLAKE POINTE ASS'N

In a property owners' association's action against the corporate developer of a townhome community and the construction contractor, no error or abuse of discretion is found in the trial court's rulings allowing the association to proceed on a damage claim involving nonparty property owners, finding that the association had standing, concluding that individual property owners were not necessary parties, denying a mistrial arising from impeachment of a witness, or instructing the jury concerning proximate causation and damages. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

SULLIVAN v. ROBERTSON DRUG CO.

In a physician's contribution action against a pharmacist and his employer following the physician's settlement of a malpractice claim, the trial court erred in giving jury instructions suggesting that the pharmacist could not be found liable for the whole, indivisible injury caused by prescribed medications he had dispensed, permitting the jury to apportion damages based on relative degrees of the parties' negligence, and by submitting the reasonableness of the settlement to the jury where the pharmacist failed to present evidence that it was unreasonable or excessive. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial on all issues.

Read More »

KESWICK CLUB v. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE

Considering an application under Code § 58.1-3984 for correction of real property tax assessments, the circuit court erred in employing the standard of review applicable when assessments are entitled to a presumption of validity, requiring proof of manifest error or that controlling evidence was disregarded. An assessment based on a single market value determination approach, when others are not considered and properly rejected, is not entitled to a presumption of validity. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for application of the less stringent standard of review requiring the taxpayer to prove only that the assessments were erroneous.

Read More »

HOLMES v. LEVINE

In a wrongful-death action based on alleged medical malpractice by a radiologist, the trial court erred in refusing to give the plaintiff?s requested jury instruction on the issue of proximate causation. The trial court did not err either in overruling plaintiff?s objection that certain testimony of a treating physician did not satisfy the requirements of Code § 8.01-399(B) or in sustaining an objection to testimony elicited on cross-examination of a medical expert witness concerning the cause of death listed in a death certificate. The judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the case is remanded for a new trial on all issues.

Read More »

FORD MOTOR CO. v. BENITEZ

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing monetary sanctions against an attorney under Code § 8.01-271.1 where, under an objective standard of reasonableness, the attorney had knowledge at the time of signing a pleading, formed after reasonable inquiry, that there was no factual support for several affirmative defenses asserted therein. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

HUGHES v. DOE

In a suit alleging that an employer was liable for the negligence of its employee under a respondeat superior theory, dismissal of a claim against the employee with prejudice on procedural grounds terminates the plaintiff's ability to hold the employee liable for any alleged negligence, but does not amount to an affirmative finding of the employee's non-negligence. Absent such a finding, the employer is not exonerated under the derivative liability principle and such dismissal does not preclude further proceedings against the employer. The judgment of the trial court dismissing the case is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

DOE v. TERRY

In a personal injury action, the circumstantial evidence adduced was insufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an unknown driver threw an object that struck and injured plaintiff as he was performing maintenance work inside an interstate highway tunnel. Thus, there was insufficient evidence of John Doe's negligence to permit plaintiff to recover against the defendant insurer. The jury verdict in the plaintiff?s favor is reversed and final judgment is entered in John Doe's favor.

Read More »
Scroll To Top