Home / Uncategorized (page 70)

Uncategorized

Feed Subscription

JOHN VICTOR DRITSELIS v. MARY TSAKIRES DRITSELIS (118876)

Trial court erred in denying appellant?s motion to amend his bill of complaint to include a request for spousal support or a reservation of future support; that part of judgment reversed and matter is remanded to the trial court; trial court did not err in finding the parties? settlement agreement was valid and distributing the parties? property pursuant to that agreement

Read More »

HERITAGE HALL, et al. v. CRABTREE

No error in commission?s award of benefits for a knee injury that appellee sustained at work as the appellee?s response and the injury that resulted arose as a natural incident of her work and the conditions under which she performed it

Read More »

SINGSON v. COMMONWEALTH

This Court holds that appellant lacks standing to facially challenge the constitutionality of Code Section 18.2-361 pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Code Section 18.2-361 is not unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment, and appellant is procedurally barred from arguing that sentence imposed by trial court constitutes cruel and unusual punishment

Read More »

CRUTCHFIELD v. CRUTCHFIELD

This Court cannot consider appellant?s argument that the trial court erred in not setting aside the final decree of divorce as the trial court lacked authority to enter the January 19, 2005 order, rendering it a nullity; all other arguments raised on appeal are barred by Rule 5A:18

Read More »

JONES v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence was sufficient to prove appellant willfully failed to provide care for her child in a manner so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for his life

Read More »

DRITSELIS v. DRITSELIS

Trial court erred in denying appellant?s motion to amend his bill of complaint to include a request for spousal support or a reservation of future support; that part of judgment reversed and matter is remanded to the trial court; trial court did not err in finding the parties? settlement agreement was valid and distributing the parties? property pursuant to that agreement

Read More »

TJAN v. COMMONWEALTH

This Court holds that appellant lacks standing to mount a facial challenge to Code Section 18.2-361 and also lacks standing to contend that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad; this Court also holds that Code Section 18.2-361 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause and is not void for vagueness; appellant's conviction affirmed

Read More »

LWASA v. LWASA

Summary affirmance ? trial court did not err in finding appellant?s marriage to appellee was void ab initio and in awarding appellee attorney?s fees

Read More »

JOEL DULAY SINGSON v. COMMONWEALTH

This Court holds that appellant lacks standing to facially challenge the constitutionality of Code Section 18.2-361 pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Code Section 18.2-361 is not unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment, and appellant is procedurally barred from arguing that sentence imposed by trial court constitutes cruel and unusual punishment

Read More »

CHERYL KASHAWN JONES v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence was sufficient to prove appellant willfully failed to provide care for her child in a manner so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for his life

Read More »

DRITSELIS v. DRITSELIS (118825)

Trial court erred in denying appellant?s motion to amend his bill of complaint to include a request for spousal support or a reservation of future support; that part of judgment reversed and matter is remanded to the trial court; trial court did not err in finding the parties? settlement agreement was valid and distributing the parties? property pursuant to that agreement

Read More »

ANDY JOE TJAN v. COMMONWEALTH

This Court holds that appellant lacks standing to mount a facial challenge to Code Section 18.2-361 and also lacks standing to contend that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad; this Court also holds that Code Section 18.2-361 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause and is not void for vagueness; appellant's conviction affirmed

Read More »

JANA HEISCHMAN CRUTCHFIELD v. WILLIAM G. CRUTCHFIELD, JR.

This Court cannot consider appellant?s argument that the trial court erred in not setting aside the final decree of divorce as the trial court lacked authority to enter the January 19, 2005 order, rendering it a nullity; all other arguments raised on appeal are barred by Rule 5A:18

Read More »

POWELL v. WARDEN (UNPUBLISHED ORDER) (121512)

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. (See <a href="http://www.courts.state.va.us:80/#042716">Opinion</a> dated September 15, 2006.)

Read More »

JOHN VICTOR DRITSELIS v. MARY TSAKIRES DRITSELIS

Trial court erred in denying appellant?s motion to amend his bill of complaint to include a request for spousal support or a reservation of future support; that part of judgment reversed and matter is remanded to the trial court; trial court did not err in finding the parties? settlement agreement was valid and distributing the parties? property pursuant to that agreement

Read More »

COLES v. COMMONWEALTH

In a prosecution for attempted capital murder of a law enforcement officer by ramming into a police cruiser with a stolen automobile, the Court of Appeals correctly decided that the trial court reasonably could have concluded, upon consideration of all the evidence, including the defendant's conduct, that he was guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

WESTGATE CONDO ASS'N v. PHILIP RICHARDSON CO.

Inclusion of a particular parcel of land in the property description and plat of a condominium declaration was not a scrivener's error. Therefore, the developers were not entitled to remove that parcel from the condominium unilaterally by a "correction amendment" under Code § 55-79.71(F). Because the trial court erred in granting judgment to the developers, they were not entitled to recovery of attorneys' fees under Code § 55-79.53(A). The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

OLA v. YMCA OF SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS

In a personal injury case brought by the parents of a minor who was abducted and sexually assaulted in a bathroom while using the defendant membership-based organization's recreational facilities, the trial court correctly sustained the defendant's special plea of charitable immunity. Substantial evidence supported the court's conclusion that at the time of the minor's injury, defendant was a charitable organization operating in accordance with a charitable purpose and that the minor was a beneficiary of its charitable bounty. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Read More »

BROWN v. COMMONWEALTH

In a drug prosecution, considering the totality of the circumstances, the investigating officer did not have probable cause to arrest and search a defendant found sleeping in a car with a partially burned, hand-rolled cigarette visible in his hand. Thus, the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, defendant's convictions are vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with direction to remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings, if the Commonwealth be so advised.

Read More »

DOE v. ZWELLING

In an action to recover damages for professional malpractice of a health care provider who allegedly engaged in an inappropriate and extraprofessional relationship with the plaintiff?s wife, the amended motion for judgment presented a combination of claims, some of which are barred by Code § 8.01-220 and others which are not. Thus the trial court erred in dismissing the entire case by sustaining the health care provider's demurrer. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded.

Read More »

ANTHONY v. VIRGINIA STATE BAR

A derogatory statement concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, made by a lawyer with knowing falsity or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity, violates Rule 8.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and does not qualify as constitutionally protected speech. No merit is found in any of the attorney's assignments of error, and since the record supports the finding that the attorney in the instant case made such statements, the conclusion that he violated Rule 8.2 and the concomitant sanction imposed for such violation by a three-judge court are affirmed.

Read More »

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RWY. CO. v. ROGERS

In an action against a railroad under the Federal Employers? Liability Act, expert testimony offered by the plaintiff concerning exposure to unreasonably dangerous levels of silica dust lacked an adequate factual foundation. The remainder of the evidence presented was insufficient as a matter of law on the issue of the defendant's negligence. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and final judgment is entered for the defendant railroad.

Read More »

DOWLING v. ROWAN

In a dispute over probate of a will, the trial court correctly concluded that a premarital agreement constituted a waiver of the surviving spouse?s claims against "separate property" specified under the agreement, such that his claims for a statutory elective share of the decedent's estate, family allowance, and exempt property, could not be satisfied using any such property. Certain foreign real estate and life insurance policies were properly excluded from the augmented estate. Because the surviving spouse's elective share claim is distinguishable from his duties as executor of the estate, the trial court properly granted him fees for administration of the estate while denying his claim for fees related to the elective share litigation. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

ALLIANCE TO SAVE THE MATTAPONI v. COMMONWEALTH

In a dispute over construction of a reservoir, Code § 62.1-44.29 waives sovereign immunity for judicial review of Water Control Board actions. The Board properly applied Code § 62.1-44.15:5(C) and the judgment under the Administrative Process Act is affirmed. On separate claims transferred from the Court of Appeals, that portion of the circuit court?s judgment holding that a particular Treaty is Virginia law is affirmed. The circuit court?s judgment that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the separate Treaty claims is reversed, and those claims are remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

ORAEE v. BREEDING

In a medical malpractice context, the immunity from civil liability afforded a physician under Code § 8.01-581.18(B) applies only when that physician fails to review, or take action in response to the receipt of, a report containing the results of a laboratory test or examination conducted ?not at the request or with the written authorization of a physician.? Thus, the judgment of the circuit court refusing to grant immunity to a physician who failed to obtain the results of certain laboratory tests requested by another physician is affirmed.

Read More »

WILLIAMS v. COMMONWEALTH

In sentencing a defendant convicted of two firearms-related offenses, a three-year term of postrelease supervision is added pursuant to Code § 19.2-295.2 to the 10-year term that could have been imposed for these offenses. The sentences imposed by the trial court were within the ranges set by the General Assembly for the underlying offenses and the period of postrelease supervision authorized by the statute and, therefore, were not illegal. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing the sentences. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Read More »

DAVIS v. HOLSTEN

In a dispute concerning the sale of a residence, the trial court correctly ruled that the substantial compliance principle of contract law did not apply to an escrow agreement obligating the seller to either accomplish, or cause to be accomplished, repairs that the buyers had specified in the agreement. The seller did not carry his burden of proof to show that he had strictly complied with the agreement and, therefore, did not establish that he was entitled to release of the escrowed funds. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Read More »

MCALEVY v. COMMONWEALTH

The Court of Appeals did not err in affirming a conviction for larceny on the grounds that the asportation element of that crime may be imputed to one who acts through an innocent agent. For the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, that court?s judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

CRAWFORD v. HADDOCK

In an interpleader action commenced by a life insurance company for a determination of which of the possible beneficiaries of a Virginia state employee's policy should be paid the death benefits, the trial court did not err in ruling that Code § 51.1-510 bars imposition of a constructive trust on proceeds from a Virginia Retirement System group life insurance policy. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Read More »

THE LAMAR CO. v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

In a case challenging a local board of zoning appeals' denial of an advertising company's request to change the location of two billboards, the trial court did not apply an incorrect standard of review under Code § 15.2-2314, as it solely resolved a question of law. Because cross-error was not assigned to any factual basis of the trial court?s decision, the presumption of the correctness of the BZA?s decision is not at issue as to any factual matter. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Read More »

CALCOTE v. FRASER FORBES CO.

In a Virginia proceeding enforcing a District of Columbia judgment confirming an arbitration award, the trial court erred because it did not enforce the judgment in a manner consistent with the provisions of the award. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded.

Read More »

GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES v. LITTLE

In a wrongful death case arising from exposure to asbestos, federal maritime principles apply to plaintiff's cause of action against a manufacturer of products used during the construction and repair of navy vessels situated in navigable waters. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

BROWN v. VIRGINIA STATE BAR

In a bar disciplinary proceeding, the Virginia State Bar submitted itself to the jurisdiction of a three-judge panel when it stipulated that an attorney's demand to have the matter heard before that tribunal was timely. The subsequent decision of the Disciplinary Board suspending the attorney's license to practice law in this Commonwealth for a period of one year is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings before a three-judge panel.

Read More »

BUTLER v. SOUTHERN STATES COOPERATIVE, INC.

In an action charging assault and battery and infliction of emotional distress by a co-worker who made sexual advances to the plaintiff, the trial court erred in sustaining special pleas in bar by the co-worker and the defendant employer asserting that the incident arose out of and in the course of the employment so as to be barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers? Compensation Act, Code § 65.2-307. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »
Scroll To Top