Home / Uncategorized (page 59)

Uncategorized

Feed Subscription

SHERWIN WILLIAMS COMPANY v. ENGLAND

Commission erred in denying appellant?s applications to suspend the benefits of appellee as appellee obstructed independent medical examinations without justification; award is reversed

Read More »

PHILIP SURLES v. KRISTAN MAYER AND MARTY CULLEN, JR.

Trial court?s holding that appellant lacked standing to pursue visitation with his biological daughter?s half-sibling is harmless error as appellant failed to present any evidence indicating that the absence of visitation would result in actual harm to the child; trial court?s denial of appellant?s petition for visitation is affirmed

Read More »

KING v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in admitting the challenged testimony over appellant?s state hearsay objection; this Court holds that the ends of justice exception does not apply to appellant?s Confrontation Clause claim; appellant?s convictions affirmed

Read More »

THORNTON v. GLAZER

In a medical malpractice case, the trial court erred in its refusal to admit deposition testimony of a treating physician as rebuttal, and erred in its refusal of an adverse witness jury instruction. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Read More »

SCHLEGEL v. BANK OF AMERICA

In litigation involving funds frozen by a receiving bank after transfer pursuant to unauthorized payment orders, Code § 8.4A-204(a) preempts certain common law claims relating to the unauthorized payment, but does not preempt common law claims relating to the subsequent freezing of the funds. Further, while the trial court did not err in awarding attorney's fees in the bank's related interpleader action, it abused its discretion in failing to limit the award to necessary and appropriate fees and in its apportionment of the award among the obligated parties. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Read More »

OGUNDE v. COMMONWEALTH

The trial court erred in ruling that an inmate's negligence action brought against the Commonwealth under the Virginia Tort Claims Act, Code §§ 8.01-195.1 to -195.9, is governed by Code § 8.01-243.2, the statute of limitations applicable to persons confined in state correctional facilities, and not by Code § 8.01-195.7, the statute of limitations for actions brought under the Act. The inmate statute deals with all classes of litigation filed by inmates, while the Act applies specifically to tort actions against the Commonwealth. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

CHERRYSTONE INLET v. BZA FOR NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

A board of zoning appeals properly denied variances from setback requirements where a developer failed to show that its recently platted lots existed when the zoning ordinance and a governing statute became effective and that the ordinance interfered with all reasonable beneficial uses of its property, taken as a whole. Instead of dividing it into multiple lots, the developer could have treated the property as a single lot upon which one residential structure could be built as of right, with the remainder serving as an appurtenant waterfront amenity. The circuit court's judgment affirming the denial of the variances is affirmed.

Read More »

JAKABCIN v. TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL

A quorum of a governing body's members must be physically present to convene a valid meeting and take any action other than adjourning the meeting to a later date, even though some members may be disqualified from acting on matters pursuant to the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Code §§ 2.2-3100 et seq. Thus, the trial court erred in ruling that actions taken on rezoning and special use applications by members of a local governing body were valid when less than a quorum was physically present at the meetings when those actions were taken. The judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered declaring the actions invalid.

Read More »

AMERICAN PHYSICAL THERAPY ASS'N v. FED. OF STATE BOARDS OF PHYSICAL THERAPY

In a breach of contract action regarding the setting of fees, the trial court erred in ruling that the five-year statute of limitations embodied in Code § 8.01-246(2) barred all of plaintiff's claims. Where the contract terms contemplated distinct obligations arising at regular intervals rather than a single, continuing obligation, a new injury occurred and a separate cause of action accrued each time a new fee amount was imposed. Under these circumstances, plaintiff was entitled to bring its claims for those breaches occurring within the five years preceding its filing suit. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

ROE v. COMMONWEALTH

An order dismissing criminal charges, entered where the Commonwealth failed to procure the presence of a defendant who was in the custody of federal officials, and where it was not prepared to proceed with its case against the defendant, was with prejudice and not in the nature of a nolle prosequi. The circuit court had denied the Commonwealth's motion for a continuance, and the Commonwealth neglected to request a nolle prosequi. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the indictments are dismissed.

Read More »

CITY OF CHESAPEAKE v. STATES SELF-INSURERS RISK RETENTION GROUP

In response to a certified question accepted under Article VI, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia and Rule 5:42, it is held that coverage for reimbursement of legal fees was excluded under provisions of a city's risk retention group policy for claims relating to suits filed by 214 women who alleged that they suffered miscarriages resulting from exposure to chemicals in the city's water supply. The certified question is answered in the affirmative.

Read More »

SPENCER v. CITY OF NORFOLK

In a reckless driving case, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal where a term of incarceration was imposed, and then suspended, by the trial court. On the merits, the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction where the record did not demonstrate that the defendant was speeding so as to endanger a person, disregarded the consequences of her acts, or was indifferent to the safety of others. The judgment is reversed and the case is dismissed.

Read More »

PAPPAS v. VIRGINIA STATE BAR

In a discipline proceeding in which the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board suspended an attorney's license to practice law for a period of six months, the Board's decision to permit amendment of the certification of charges and to admit certain deposition testimony by a former client were improper. On the charge that was before the Board, the evidence was insufficient to find by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney violated Rule 8.4(c). The order of the Board is reversed and the action against this attorney is dismissed.

Read More »

MONTGOMERY v. MCDANIEL

The trial court did not err in sustaining an employer's demurrer to a former employee's motion for judgment asserting a claim for abuse of process. Although the former employee had clearly alleged a malicious or malevolent intent in the employer's institution of process against her, she failed to allege an act in the employer's use of the process that was not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding, and the absence of such an allegation is fatal to her claim. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

LEWIS v. LEWIS

An interlocutory decree in a divorce case, dismissing a cross-bill for annulment, did not adjudicate the principles of a cause and therefore was not appealable. The Court of Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Its judgment is reversed and the appeal is dismissed.

Read More »

NOBREGA v. COMMONWEALTH

In its consideration of a defendant's convictions under Code § 18.2-61 and Code § 18.2-370.1 for rape of a child under age thirteen and sexual abuse of the same child over whom he maintained a custodial or supervisory relationship, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the trial court had no authority to order the complaining witness to undergo a psychiatric or psychological examination and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the convictions is affirmed.

Read More »

CAMPBELL v. HARMON

A personal representative has standing under Code § 8.01-25 to maintain a cause of action existing at the time of the decedent?s death, which includes the right to compel an accounting under Code § 8.01-31 relating to a trust of which the decedent was a beneficiary, and the trial court erred in ruling otherwise. However, because the decedent did not have a cause of action during his lifetime relating to tangible personal property removed from his residence after his death, the trial court did not err in concluding that the executor lacked standing to seek an accounting for that property. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded.

Read More »

RESTAURANT CO. v. UNITED LEASING CORP.

A debtor's assumption of a lease pursuant to a confirmed Chapter 11 plan does not create a new lease, and bankruptcy proceedings do not toll the statute of limitations applicable to actions against the debtor's sureties. Accordingly, the statute of limitations as to a surety's obligations begins to run from the date of the debtor's initial default and does not commence anew upon plan confirmation. Thus, the trial court erred in finding that a suit against a debtor's sureties was timely filed, where the initial default occurred outside of the limitations period. The trial court judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered in the sureties' favor.

Read More »

ORNDORFF v. COMMONWEALTH

In a prosecution for second degree murder in the shooting death of the defendant's husband, the Court of Appeals did not err in approving the circuit court?s determination that the defendant was competent to stand trial in the sentencing phase of the proceedings, but erred in approving portions of the judgment relating to the reasonable diligence and materiality standards for an award of a new trial based on after-discovered evidence of a mental disorder allegedly supporting an insanity defense. The Court of Appeals' judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

EAGLE HARBOR v. ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY

In a suit by developers seeking declaratory and compensatory relief relating to utility connection fees imposed by a county under certain ordinances, where it was not alleged that the fees represented an improper revenue raising device amounting to an illegal tax, impact fee, or special assessment so as to be void, the trial court did not err in refusing to apply a "reasonable correlation" test. Applying the "fairly debatable" standard, the trial court did not err in granting a demurrer as to a claim under Code § 15.2-2119. Since evidence before the court was adequate to resolve the issues, the trial court did not err in ruling without an evidentiary hearing. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

WELCH v. COMMONWEALTH

Testimony by a minor victim that she had a "sexual relationship" with an adult defendant "over 20" times, and defendant's purported admission to her mother that he was "having sexual relations" with the minor, without further proof, was not sufficient to prove one of the particular acts constituting ?carnal knowledge? under Code § 18.2-63. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the defendant's conviction is reversed and the indictment is dismissed.

Read More »

BAKER v. ELMENDORF

An appeal of a general district court conviction to a circuit court under Code § 16.1-132 is a de novo appeal. Thus, whenever a defendant appeals such a conviction, the fact of that conviction is not admissible in the appeal or in a subsequent civil proceeding because the de novo appeal negates any judgment entered by the general district court. Accordingly, the trial court erred in admitting the fact of the plaintiff's general district court conviction into evidence in a malicious prosecution action brought following the successful appeal of such conviction to the circuit court. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

MONAHAN v. OBICI MEDICAL MANAGEMENT

In a medical malpractice case, the defendant health care provider was not required to affirmatively plead the defense of failure to mitigate damages in order to request a jury instruction on that topic, but the trial court erred in granting a such an instruction where there was no evidentiary basis to support it, and in refusing a request by plaintiff that the jury be directed to disregard certain evidence regarding the plaintiff's actions after leaving the defendant's premises. It is presumed the jury?s consideration of damages was affected by the improperly given mitigation instruction. Since no cross-error was assigned to the judgment that defendant is liable for negligence, the case is remanded for a new trial limited to the issue of damages.

Read More »

COMMONWEALTH v. MICHAEL SHAYNE BROWN

Trial court erred in suppressing a redacted version of a report prepared by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner as the redacted report does not violate appellant?s Sixth Amendment rights; trial court?s decision reversed and matter remanded to trial court

Read More »

COMMONWEALTH v. BROWN

Trial court erred in suppressing a redacted version of a report prepared by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner as the redacted report does not violate appellant?s Sixth Amendment rights; trial court?s decision reversed and matter remanded to trial court

Read More »

MCDOWELL v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in admitting the Box-List Sheets Report to establish the value of the stolen merchandise under the business records exception to the hearsay rule; evidence was sufficient to convict appellant of grand larceny and larceny with the intent to sell or distribute stolen property

Read More »

DOROTHY D. TOBIN v. RICHARD J. TOBIN

Trial court did not err in denying appellant?s procedural motions, in concluding that an issue was mature for decision without an evidentiary hearing, in determining that language in a qualified domestic relations order was not ambiguous, and in interpreting that language

Read More »

BROWN v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in its pretrial ruling as to the admissibility of the 911 tape and in denying appellant?s motion to strike the evidence; trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant?s previously suspended sentences and in ordering a portion of those sentences be served consecutive to his sentence for the attempted armed robbery

Read More »

GARRETT E. MUSHAW v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence was sufficient to prove appellant knowingly made a false statement on his application for public assistance; appellant?s conviction is affirmed

Read More »

HILLARD v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court?s use of a penalty phase verdict form that precluded the jury from making a finding that appellant?s conviction for use of a firearm was a second or subsequent conviction was harmless error; appellant?s sentence is affirmed

Read More »

ELLIS v. COMMONWEALTH

No error in trial court?s denial of appellant?s motion to sever the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon from the charges of brandishing a firearm

Read More »

TOBIN v. TOBIN

Trial court did not err in denying appellant?s procedural motions, in concluding that an issue was mature for decision without an evidentiary hearing, in determining that language in a qualified domestic relations order was not ambiguous, and in interpreting that language

Read More »

LAWRENCE MCDOWELL v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in admitting the Box-List Sheets Report to establish the value of the stolen merchandise under the business records exception to the hearsay rule; evidence was sufficient to convict appellant of grand larceny and larceny with the intent to sell or distribute stolen property

Read More »

MUSHAW v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence was sufficient to prove appellant knowingly made a false statement on his application for public assistance; appellant?s conviction is affirmed

Read More »

CARLOS DEMARON BROWN v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in its pretrial ruling as to the admissibility of the 911 tape and in denying appellant?s motion to strike the evidence; trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant?s previously suspended sentences and in ordering a portion of those sentences be served consecutive to his sentence for the attempted armed robbery

Read More »

RODNEY HILLARD v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court?s use of a penalty phase verdict form that precluded the jury from making a finding that appellant?s conviction for use of a firearm was a second or subsequent conviction was harmless error; appellant?s sentence is affirmed

Read More »
Scroll To Top