The Most Important Opinions, January-June 2026

The Important Opinions of the Week that appear on Virginia Lawyers Weekly’s front page are selected from decisions issued and received the previous week. Summaries include rulings from the Virginia’s trial and appellate courts.

Virginia Lawyers Weekly relies on individual judges and attorneys to inform the paper of trial court rulings of interest. Please consider submitting rulings regardless of whether it seems like a significant case. Upon request, the names of the attorneys of record in the case will be included in the summaries.

To submit a trial court decision, please email decisions to [email protected].

ADMINISTRATIVE

Where an administrative law judge who denied a claim for disability insurance benefits did not explain the effect the applicant’s moderate impairment in concentration, persistence and pace would have on his ability to stay on task and maintain a sufficient work pace to maintain competitive employment, she erred. Quentin M.C. v. Bisignano, VLW 026-3-014, 15 pp.

Where the administrative law judge denied an applicant’s claim for disability insurance limits, reasoning that he could still perform a range of light work, and the decision was sufficiently explained and supported by the record, it was affirmed. Stacey S. v. Commissioner of Social Security, VLW 026-3-076, 31 pp.

ANTITRUST

Where the district court applied a quick-look analysis to the antitrust claim brought by former junior college athletes against the National Collegiate Athletic Association, it erred. Robinson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, VLW 026-2-116, 34 pp.

ARBITRATION

Where a claim set out in a complaint purports to evade the Federal Arbitration Act’s exclusivity but nevertheless in substance simply asks that the arbitration award be vacated, the court will dismiss the claim as an impermissible collateral attack. Center for Excellence in Higher Education Inc. v. Accreditation Alliance of Career Schools and Colleges, VLW 026-2-037, 19 pp.

BANKS AND BANKING

Where a man sued Bank of America after his loan application was denied, but his complaint failed to include facts supporting his myriad claims, his suit was dismissed. Bowling v. Bank of America, NA, VLW 026-3-018, 4 pp.

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Where a company that was sued for its alleged role in the opioid epidemic sought a jury trial, which the trial court denied, a writ of mandamus was issued. In re:
Express Scripts, Inc., VLW 026-2-177, 26 pp.

CIVIL RIGHTS

Where an officer fatally shot a man who did not pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others and who was not actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight, and it was clearly established that an officer shooting an individual under these circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment, the officer’s qualified immunity motion was denied. Geneva Enterprises, LLC v. Chavez, VLW 026-2-138, 14 pp.

COMMERCIAL

Where a franchisor asserted trade secret claims against its former franchisee, but it failed to plead facts plausibly showing its “specialized marketing strategies and materials” and “Brand Standards Manual” are protectable as trade secrets, the claims based upon these documents were dismissed. Willett v. Window Gang, LLC, VLW 026-3-094, 23 pp.

Where a beauty school alleged it was due process when its accreditation was withdrawn, and it was likely to prevail on this claim, an accrediting agency was ordered to restore its accreditation on a temporary basis pending a final decision on appeal, arbitration or ruling on the merits of this case. New Concept Massage & Beauty School, Inc. v. National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts and Sciences, Inc., VLW 026-3-214, 17 pp.

CONSTITUTIONAL

Where Congress passed the Virginia Readmission Act of 1870 following the end of the Civil War, which prevents Virginia from changing its constitution to deprive any citizen of the right to vote “except as a punishment for such crimes as are now felonies at common law,” but Virginia now automatically disqualifies all felons from the ballot box, the court entered an injunction permitting the defendants to disenfranchise people only for certain felonies. King v. O’Bannon, VLW 026-3-032, 44 pp.

Where two ministers alleged that two clerks of court unlawfully refused to recognize them as Universal Life Church ministers, so that they could officiate marriages, but the statute allowed them to seek relief from the circuit court, and they failed to do so, their suit was dismissed for lack of standing. Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Landes, VLW 026-3-070, 26 pp.

Where two pastors sued their church and others over allegedly false and defamatory statements, but the court could not resolve their claims without deciding issues of church doctrine, governance and policy, their suit was dismissed. Nieto v. Great Bridge Presbyterian Church, Inc., VLW 026-7-118, 18 pp.

Where three trainers alleged that three organizations violated their Fifth Amendment rights by barring them from involvement in United States Olympic sports without first holding hearings on their alleged misconduct, their claims were dismissed. Navarro v. United States Center for SafeSport, VLW 026-2-148, 26 pp.

Where Virginia tuition grant program limits eligibility to nonprofit private institutions of higher education whose primary purpose is to provide collegiate, graduate, or professional education and not provide religious training or theological education, it does not violate the First Amendment. Hall v. Fleming, VLW 026-2-168, 18 pp.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Where the plaintiff alleged the selling of his name to other entities, for later use for advertising purposes, violated Virginia statutory law, the court disagreed. Roberson v. Acxiom LLC, VLW 026-3-147, 16 pp.

Where a customer failed to plead facts making it plausible that a bank provided inaccurate or incomplete information to credit reporting agencies, his Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against the bank were dismissed. Harvey v. USAA Federal Savings Bank. VLW 026-3-180, 12 pp.

CONTRACT

Where an inventor alleged it shared its designs for a new product with the defendant under a promise of confidentiality and limits on use, and that the defendant then breached those promises, the inventor’s claim for breach of a non-disclosure agreement survived the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Eco Cladding Inc. v. Hohmann & Barnard, VLW 026-3-052, 15 pp.

Where a testing laboratory plausibly alleged that Anthem wrongly denied claims, its claim under ERISA, for breach of contract and for violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing survived the motion to dismiss. Abira Medical Laboratories v. Anthem Health Plans of Virginia, Inc., VLW 026-3-058, 21 pp.

Where the parties resolved a prior state-court case via a settlement agreement that dismissed all possible counterclaims that could have been brought in that litigation, the district court did not err when it held this subsequent suit was barred by that broad release. Clear Touch Interactive Inc. v. The Ockers Company, VLW 026-2-113, 38 pp.

Although a man convicted of wrongfully obtaining individually identifiable health information argued that the conviction should be vacated because the screenshot didn’t disclose the precise nature of the justice’s illness or the names of her doctors, this argument was rejected. Schroder v. Schelin, VLW 026-7-142, 9 pp.

Where the parties agreed to a monetary settlement amount and payment schedule during a court mediation conference, but a dispute thereafter arose over settlement terms, the parties were ordered back to settlement before a magistrate judge. Geiger v. Breakers Billiard Café, Inc., VLW 026-3-196, 6 pp.

Where a company filed a breach of lease claim, but none of the named defendants had signed the lease or was intended to be on the lease, the circuit court did not err in sustaining the pleas in bar to the breach of contract claim. Gourmet Gang v. Sun Sunset Beach RV, VLW 026-7-221, 15 pp.

CRIMINAL

Where a man convicted for making threatening phone calls argued the trial court erred when it refused to give his “unconscious bias” jury instruction, this argument was rejected. United States v. Hayward, VLW 026-2-014, 5 pp.

Where the judge’s comments created an appearance that sentencing was based on extrajudicial, impermissible considerations, such an appearance undermines the constitutional due process guarantee of a neutral and detached arbitrator. Jackson v. Commonwealth, VLW 026-7-048, 23 pp.

Where the defendant argued his constitutional rights were violated because the Commonwealth referred to the alleged victim as the victim at trial, thus removing the presumption of innocence that he is afforded under the Due Process Clause, the court outlined the factors the trial court must consider when deciding if the use violated the defendant’s rights. Murray Jr. v. Commonwealth, VLW 026-7-064, 11 pp.

Where a man convicted of multiple larceny counts argued that evidence collected from a license plate camera violated his Fourth Amendment rights, this argument was rejected. Robinson v. Commonwealth, VLW 026-7-131, 10 pp.

Although a man convicted of wrongfully obtaining individually identifiable health information argued that the conviction should be vacated because the screenshot didn’t disclose the precise nature of the justice’s illness or the names of her doctors, this argument was rejected. United States v. Russell, VLW 026-2-130, 17 pp.

Although officers continued interrogating the defendant after he invoked his right to counsel, because that interrogation then ended, and the defendant then knowingly and voluntarily initiated a further exchange with law enforcement, those statements are admissible. Fayne v. Commonwealth, VLW 026-6-024, 9 pp.

Where an attorney was found in summary contempt because of language included in a motion, but the motion was drafted, printed and submitted outside of open court, her conviction was vacated. Corcoran v. Commonwealth, VLW 026-7-213, 10 pp.

The divided court held that the use or display of a firearm while committing Virginia robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under the elements clause. United States v. Scott, VLW 026-2-186, 26 pp.

Where a jury convicted the defendant on multiple charges stemming from a fatal shooting, the Court of Appeals erred when it vacated his convictions. Commonwealth v. Mahoney, VLW 026-6-030, 12 pp.

DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Where Va. Code § 20-109(E) provides that reaching “full retirement age” is a “material change in circumstances,” and the husband moved to terminate an indefinite $3,000 monthly spousal support obligation based on his retirement, his monthly obligation was reduced to $1,208.86 beginning Jan. 1, 2027. Shaffer v. Orellana, VLW 026-8-007, 22 pp.

EDUCATION

Where the class action suit alleged that the Virginia Department of Education and the Fairfax County School Board systemically violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but one plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, a second plaintiff’s claims were duplicative of its claims in another suit and a nonprofit organization lacked standing, the suit was dismissed. D.C. v. Fairfax County School Board, VLW 026-2-100, 28 pp.

Where parents argued that a policy barring homeschooled students from participating in public school athletics violated the Equal Protection clause, their injunction motion was denied. Palmer v. Virginia High School League, VLW 026-3-229, 20 pp.

EMPLOYMENT

Where a woman asserting race discrimination and retaliation claims argued that summary judgment violates the Seventh Amendment by depriving a plaintiff of her right to a jury trial, this argument was rejected. Anthony v. United Airlines Inc., VLW 026-2-009, 9 pp.

Where former servers alleged a restaurant’s inclusion of busboys and cleaners in the “tip pool” was improper, but they failed to plead facts making it plausible these individuals did not have more than de minimis interaction with customers, this claim was dismissed. Braxton v. Lideslambous Inc., VLW 026-3-042, 41 pp.

Where an employee was allegedly told that he would be fired if he filed an EEO complaint against two supervisors, and he was fired three months after he filed an EEO complaint, a jury will decide if his termination was in retaliation for his protected activity. Reeves v. Hegseth, VLW 026-2-093, 11 pp.

Where a company sought to enforce its restrictive covenants against former employees and their new employer, but the covenants were ambiguous, not narrowly drawn, were unduly burdensome and were against public policy, they were unenforceable. Intercoastal Mortg. LLC v. Wampler, VLW 026-8-014, 11 pp.

Although the court certified a class of employees who were denied or delayed requests for religious exemptions from mandated COVID-19 vaccination by the
University of Virginia Health System because they were not members of established religions, it denied certification of two other putative classes. Phillips v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, VLW 026-3-185, 27 pp.

Where the record failed to show that the former employee was disabled or regarded as disabled, and instead showed the employer terminated their employment for legitimate reasons, the employer was granted summary judgment. Garedo v. Transportation District of Hampton Roads, VLW 026-3-206, 20 pp.

Where a public high school teacher alleged that school officials retaliated against her because of her speech, but there were insufficient allegations making the claims plausible, or the defendants were entitled to immunity, the suit was dismissed. Perez v. Fairfax County School Board, VLW 026-3-209, 15 pp.

Where an employee alleged the Chief of Police failed to accommodate his disability, but the chief was not an “employer” under the Virginia Human Rights Act, the suit was dismissed. Khan v. McAlister, VLW 026-7-173, 12 pp.

ENVIRONMENTAL

Where the district court erred in finding that the plaintiffs established irreparable harm, its injunction limiting a company’s release of a chemical compound into a river was vacated. West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Inc. v. The Chemours Company FC, LLC, VLW 026-2-200, 26 pp.

EVIDENCE

Where Ford Motor Co. moved to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert in a lawsuit over allegedly defective automatic transmissions, but the court rejected each of its arguments, its motion was rejected. Dolan v. Ford Motor Company, VLW 026-3-261, 30 pp.

FRAUD

Where an owner convinced a salesman to reduce his commission in exchange for equity in the company but then took no steps to set up the promised equity, “never sought approval of the board of directors” and “never had any documents drawn up,” the fraud verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages was affirmed.
Sanistaff LLC v. Prykanowski, VLW 026-7-036, 11 pp.

Where the purchasers of a residential home plausibly alleged the seller made false and material statements to induce the sale, thus violating Virginia’s Consumer Protection Act, the seller’s motion to dismiss was denied. Walker v. Sanchez, VLW 026-3-139, 33 pp.

HABEAS CORPUS

Where the plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his court martial conviction for sexual assault, but two of his arguments were already rejected by another court, and the remaining arguments were procedurally defaulted, his petition was dismissed. Reyes-Lesmes v. McDonnell, VLW 026-3-228, 11 pp.

INSURANCE

Where a man alleged a long-term disability insurer failed to employ a reasoned and principled decision-making process when it terminated his benefits, that its determinations were unsupported by the record and that it operated under a structural conflict of interest, these arguments were rejected by the court. Sramek v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company et al., VLW 026-3-023, 20 pp.

Where a second lawsuit filed against an insured was related to an earlier filed lawsuit, in that they alleged the same scheme, resulting in the same errors and causing the same general harm, the carrier defending the first lawsuit was responsible for defending the second lawsuit. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Avertest, LLC, VLW 026-2-210, 15 pp.

JURY AND JURORS

Where a man convicted of escaping from jail argued the trial court should have struck a juror for cause, because his cousin worked at the jail at the time of the alleged offense, this argument was rejected. Radford v. Commonwealth, VLW 026-7-122, 7 pp.

Where the defendant argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike a juror for cause, but the record does not establish or even suggest the juror held a preconceived opinion of such fixed character that it repelled the presumption of innocence or that he was not otherwise indifferent to the case, this argument failed. Dutcher v. Commonwealth, VLW 026-7-163, 6 pp.

MUNICIPAL

Where Loudoun County and a property association that oversees development in Lansdowne alleged the State Corporation Commission erred when it approved two projects proposing the construction of high-voltage overhead electrical transmission lines in Loudoun County, each of their arguments was rejected. Landsdowne Conservancy v. State Corporation Commission, VLW 026-6-007, 23 pp.

NEGLIGENCE

Where a landlord was alerted to a leaking skylight by a tenant, but the landlord did not effect a repair despite her contractor confirming it was leaking and needed repair, the tenant’s negligence claim was dismissed. Metz v. McCarthy, VLW 026-2-060, 12 pp.

Where a student who was assaulted by fellow students sued a school nurse for gross negligence, but she exercised “some degree of care,” including assessing him for concussion, treating him with ice for his shoulder and jaw and provided documentation to his parents, her motion to dismiss was granted. J.M.H. v. Prince William
County School Board, VLW 026-3-121, 14 pp.

Where a blind patron plausibly alleged that his injuries occurred because of the way the premises (the roadway and lighting) were designed and maintained, the business’s motion to dismiss was denied. Derby v. Daleville Town Center Business Association, Inc., VLW 026-3-252, 8 pp.

PARENT AND CHILD

Where the Virginia adoption statute does not require a birth parent’s consent where the parent has neither visited nor contacted the child for a period of six months immediately prior to the filing of the petition for adoption without just cause, the court determined what constitutes “just cause.”
Davis v. Christy, VLW 026-7-081, 21 pp.

PATENT AND TRADEMARK

Where all of the claims in patent applications relating to the medical treatment of distributive shock were anticipated or obvious, the Patent and Trademark Office did not err when it rejected the applications. La Jolla Pharma LLC v. Squires, VLW 026-3-030, 33 pp.

Where William & Mary sued a company for trademark infringement and related claims, but there was no general or specific jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant, the suit was dismissed. The College of William & Mary in Virginia v. W M Symposia Inc., VLW 026-3-092, 8 pp.

PRISONS

Where an inmate alleged that two prison guards intentionally restrained him and punched him in the abdomen without reason, his excessive force claim survived their motion to dismiss. Hess v. SWVRJ-Haysi Facility, VLW 026-3-012, 12 pp.

REAL PROPERTY

Where the circuit court granted the City of Norfolk’s motion to strike because an owner asserting damages to her home from a construction project failed to provide sufficient evidence that the City caused damage through concussions and vibrations, it did not err. Morgan v. The City of Norfolk, VLW 026-7-024, 12 pp.

Where a family’s use of land belonging to their neighbor was actual, hostile, exclusive, visible and continuous for at least 15 years, the trial court erred when it refused to enter judgment for them on their claims of ejectment and quiet title. Bennett v.
Alexander, VLW 026-7-231, 11 pp.

SANCTIONS

Where an attorney failed to disclose material information to his client, failed to withdraw for over a month after the client terminated him and attempted to exert control over the disbursement of the settlement funds even after he was terminated, he violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct. Wessel v. Virginia State Bar ex rel. Fifth District, Section II Committee, VLW 026-6-029, 12 pp.

SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Where a vehicle that was stopped by law enforcement was not currently registered, the owner was not nearby and it was in a dangerous location, the police properly impounded it. Hinton v. Commonwealth, VLW 026-7-185, 11 pp.

TAXATION

Where a religious organization argued its property was exempt from tax, but the property was not used exclusively for religious purposes, its argument was rejected. Christian Scholars Network Inc. v. Montgomery County, Virginia, VLW 026-7-033, 17 pp.

Where a data center company argued that Fairfax County was not entitled to information about its customers, so that it could verify that those customers are paying taxes on customer-owned equipment stored in the data centers, this argument was rejected. CoreSite, LLC v. County of Fairfax, Virginia, VLW 026-7-245, 20 pp.

TORT

Where individuals injured during a school shooting sought to hold manufacturers of assault rifles, assault rifle accessories and ammunition accountable for violations of federal and Virginia law, the district court erred when it dismissed their suits for lack of standing. Lowy v. Daniel Defense LLC, VLW 026-2-046, 69 pp.

Where an attorney sued officials in Virginia’s Office of the Attorney General over statements they allegedly made following the ending of her employment, but she voluntarily withdrew her individual capacity claims and the circuit court did not err in dismissing the official capacity claims, the suit was dismissed. Miles v. Slemp III, VLW 026-7-078, 14 pp.

Where a man alleged a company wrongly reported his conviction after it was expunged, his suit was dismissed. Smith v. Informdata LLC, VLW 026-3-118, 20 pp.

Where two defendants argued Virginia’s anti-SLAPP statute required dismissal of a defamation lawsuit, the circuit court correctly denied their demurrer. Hale v. Cauzzort, VLW 026-7-096, 9 pp.

Where the Interim Director of the Kennedy Center asserted a claim for defamation, but the alleged statements lacked defamatory meaning and he failed to plausibly plead resulting damages, his suit was dismissed. Grenell v. Troye, VLW 026-3-146, 12 pp.

WILLS AND TRUSTS

Where a specific bequest in the decedent’s will was ambiguous as to the intended beneficiary, the circuit court did not err when it received extrinsic evidence, including testimony from the decedent’s husband. Palevsky v. The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation, VLW 026-7-074, 13 pp.

Where the trial court dismissed an estate administrator’s petition for the court’s aid and guidance without giving him sufficient prior notice, its dismissal order was reversed. Yetiv v. Gibson, VLW 026-7-236, 12 pp.