Home / Uncategorized (page 9)

Uncategorized

Feed Subscription

LETHA J. SHANNON v. DENNIS F. SHANNON

No error in trial court?s equitable distribution of parties? property wherein it refused to award appellant a portion of appellee?s military pension, refused to impute income to appellee, refused to award appellant current spousal support, and refused to award appellant attorney?s fees; trial court did not err in refusing to award appellee portion of appellant?s pension

Read More »

FRANCIS HABO GEORGE v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Trial court did not err in convicting appellant of four counts of embezzlement, instead of convictions under the state tax code, where evidence proved appellant failed to remit funds collected from his employees and used for his own benefit funds he held in trust for the Commonwealth

Read More »

GEORGE v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in convicting appellant of four counts of embezzlement, instead of convictions under the state tax code, where evidence proved appellant failed to remit funds collected from his employees and used for his own benefit funds he held in trust for the Commonwealth

Read More »

WILLIAM F. HARBER v. CHARLENE M. HARBER

Trial court erred in imputing income to appellant at his pre-retirement employment rate for purposes of calculating amount of spousal support to appellee; on remand to recalculate amount of spousal support, trial court should not consider appellee?s expenses for her two adult children who live with her

Read More »

WARREN COUNTY v. DONAHOE

No error in commission?s finding that deceased employee was an employee of Warren County for purposes of payment of benefits under the Workers? Compensation Act

Read More »

SAPONARO v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court erred in denying appellant?s motion to strike the evidence pertaining to appellant?s conviction of credit card fraud where evidence proved appellant misused a credit card lawfully in his possession with the cardholder?s consent

Read More »

JOHN QUINN INC. v. BARRY

Summary affirmance ? No error in commission?s finding that appellee proved he adequately marketed his residual work capacity by increasing his hours as his part-time, dissimilar employment

Read More »

SMITH v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in admitting appellant?s statements made to police while he was not in custody and the police activity surrounding those statements was not coercive

Read More »

DONOFRIO v. DONOFRIO

Trial court applied an incorrect standard of proof in determining appellant submitted a forged property settlement agreement; matter remanded to trial court for further proceedings

Read More »

ANDERSON v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in denying motion to suppress statements appellant made to police where he was detained incident to a traffic stop and was not in custody for purposes of Miranda when he answered questions

Read More »

YANCEY v. COMMONWEALTH

No error in trial court?s denial of motion to suppress as officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by detaining appellant to investigate trespassing offense and evidence supported that conviction; trial court erred in convicting appellant of obstructing justice where only evidence of obstruction presented was appellant?s flight from scene

Read More »

EVANS v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in convicting appellant of three separate counts of carnal knowledge where evidence proved statutory elements of carnal knowledge of a child were satisfied with each successive act of sexual intercourse

Read More »

SHELTON v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding evidence was sufficient to convict appellant of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of robbery; trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to reconsider and request for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence, and in denying motion for a continuance

Read More »

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES v. CHASE

No error in commission?s award of benefits to appellee where evidence supports finding that appellee had a compensable occupational disease and appellee had not obtained her pre-injury status and had not recovered from her disabling condition caused by exposure to chemicals

Read More »

DOGWOD VALLEY CITIZENS ASS'N v. SHIFFLETT

In a proceeding which followed from a homeowners' association's levy of special assessments and subsequent warrants in debt against lot owners in a development, the circuit court did not err in determining that the association, a non-stock Virginia corporation, did not qualify as a property owners? association under the Property Owners? Association Act, Code §§ 55-508 through -516.2. Because the filing of the association's articles of incorporation and bylaws in the land records did not constitute a declaration imposing upon it operational or maintenance responsibilities for the common areas or roads of the development, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Read More »

AHARI v. MORRISON

In a wrongful death action, the circuit court did not err in granting the defense plea of the statute of limitations. Because Rule 1:8 requires leave of court to amend any pleading after it is filed, an amended complaint is not deemed filed, and is thus without legal efficacy, until a trial court grants leave to amend. Thus, the claims asserted against the defendants named in an amended complaint were time barred despite plaintiff having sought leave to amend three days prior to the expiration of the limitations period. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

LLOYD v. KIME

In a medical malpractice case, the trial court did not err in using deposition evidence to resolve a motion in limine and subsequent motion for summary judgment where no objection was made, or in holding that an expert witness was not qualified under Code § 8.01-581.20 to testify on standard of care and breach thereof respecting intraoperative negligence. However, it was an abuse of discretion to conclude that the expert was not qualified to testify on these issues with respect to postoperative negligence, or causation as to either allegation of negligence. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded.

Read More »

OTT v. L&J HOLDINGS

In a declaratory suit addressing whether a wife's execution of a deed should be set aside as exceeding her authority under a power of attorney, the circuit court did not err in admitting parol evidence. Credible evidence supported the findings that the deed was not a deed of gift, that it was given for a valuable consideration without donative intent, that the transfer was undertaken for legitimate business reasons, and that both spouses received benefits commensurate with their respective property interests without any self-dealing by the wife. The transaction was therefore within the powers granted by the power of attorney. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

PHELPS v. COMMONWEALTH

In a prosecution for felony eluding and endangerment in violation of Code § 46.2-817(B), the defendant was himself a "person" endangered by his own conduct and could be convicted under this section on that basis. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding his conviction is affirmed.

Read More »

JOHNSON v. TICE

In considering a habeas corpus petition, the circuit court erred in holding that petitioner satisfied his evidentiary burden in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on failure to move for suppression of his confession at trial. As a matter of law, petitioner failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability of a different result at trial if the jury had not considered the confession. The record does not undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceedings, and the assignment of cross-error regarding trial counsel's failure to offer a particular letter in evidence does not affect this decision.

Read More »

MISSION RESIDENTIAL v. TRIPLE NET PROPERTIES

In an appeal from an order denying a motion to stay arbitration proceedings pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.02(B) filed by one of the members of a member-managed limited liability company against the other member, the trial court erred in denying the motion where the party opposing it failed to meet its burden of proving the existence of an agreement in which the movant had agreed to submit its disputes with the limited liability company to arbitration. The circuit court's judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

BISHOP v. COMMONWEALTH

In a prosecution for violation of Code § 46.2-357 the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant received actual notice that he had been determined to be an habitual offender, where the transcript of the defendant's driving record failed to clearly reflect that he had received such notice. The defendant's conviction for a violation of Code § 46.2-357 is dismissed. On request of the Commonwealth and the defendant, a conviction for violation of Code § 18.2-460(C) is vacated, and a portion of the case is remanded to the circuit court for a new sentencing proceeding on the lesser included offense as set forth in Code § 18.2-460(B).

Read More »

PURCE v. PATTERSON

The trial court did not err in ruling that an estranged husband was not eligible for an elective share of the spouse's augmented estate under Code § 64.1-16.3. The record shows that both before and after the parties separated, the husband showed none of the normal indicia of supporting his spouse or of the marital relationship. The evidence was sufficient to support the trial court?s holding that he abandoned his wife prior to and continuing until the time of her death under Code § 64.1-16.3. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court that he was not eligible for an elective share of the wife's augmented estate is affirmed.

Read More »

PARKER v. COMMONWEALTH

In a prosecution for the felony of obtaining money in excess of $200 under false pretense in violation of Code § 18.2-178 by passing off fake pills in a drug transaction, the element of false inducement to part with money or property was proven by sufficient evidence and the question whether the purchaser would have parted with his money or goods without this pretense was properly a question for the jury. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction, is affirmed.

Read More »

COSTON v. BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS

In a medical negligence case alleging that defendant's employees placed the plaintiff in a defective chair for a kidney dialysis procedure, even though they had knowledge that the chair was not safe, the allegations, if proven at trial, would be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of medical negligence without the necessity of expert testimony. Based upon these allegations, the issue whether the acts or omissions constitute medical negligence is within a jury's common knowledge and experience and, therefore, expert testimony is not necessary. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the case is remanded for a trial on the merits.

Read More »
Scroll To Top