Fulltext Opinions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

The circuit court correctly denied a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained in a search of his grandfather's house, where the grandfather consented to the search without reservation and defendant took no action to countermand such consent or object to the search of that portion of the residence he claimed he occupied and a closed backpack found therein. The facts available to the officers at the time of the search of the house were thus sufficient to lead a reasonable police officer to believe that the grandfather had authority to consent to a search of the backpack. The Court of Appeals' judgment affirming defendant's convictions is affirmed.

The Court of Appeals did not err in finding that a circuit court, after accepting a plea agreement of the type specified in Rule 3A:8(c)(1)(C), can nevertheless impose additional terms of suspended incarceration and post-release supervision pursuant to Code §§ 18.2-10(g) and 19.2-295.2(A) when such terms are not mentioned in the plea agreement. Because general principles of contract law apply to plea agreements and the law in effect when a contract is made becomes a part of the contract as though expressly incorporated therein, the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia is affirmed.

In the prosecution of firearms possession charges related to a drug offense, there was sufficient evidence that the defendant was aware of the presence and character of the firearm and that it was within his dominion and control, in a bag immediately adjacent to where he sat in a vehicle. The bag containing the gun was open and obvious, and at the time it was observed, defendant possessed illegal drugs with the intent to distribute same. The evidence was sufficient to establish that he possessed the firearm, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

In a prosecution for drug and weapons violations in which defendant claimed that a consent search of his person conducted at a roadside stop after being told that he was free to leave violated his Fourth Amendment rights, it cannot be said that the trial court's conclusion that a reasonable person would have felt free to ignore such request and leave the scene was plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence. Defendant did not establish that the circuit court committed reversible error in that finding, and no error is found in the application of law by either that court or the Court of Appeals. Accordingly the judgment upholding the convictions is affirmed.

In an appeal from a state university's decision denying a student in-state tuition status under Code § 23-7.4(B), jurisdiction lies in the Supreme Court under Code § 8.01-670(A)(3) because under Code § 17.1-405 the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction over an administrative decision made by an entity that is not purely an administrative agency. On the merits, in light of the presumption established in Code § 23-7.4(B), the university's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to law. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and final judgment is entered for the university.

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. ST. JOHN January 14, 2000 Record No. 990161 ...

In considering a claim for temporary partial disability benefits under the Virginia Workers? Compensation Act, Code §§ 65.2-100 through 65.2-1310, the Commission's award, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, was not predicated upon evidence that the employee made a reasonable effort to market his residual work capacity. Because the record contains no such evidence, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and final judgment is entered for the employer.

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. JOHN January 14, 2000 Record No. 990161 NATIONWIDE ...

In a breach of contract action arising out of foreclosure proceedings, the circuit court did not err in holding that no right to foreclose had vested in favor of a loan servicing company because it had failed to comply with pre-acceleration notice requirements contained in the deed of trust. The statutory cure provisions of Code § 55-59.1(A) also do not apply, because the issue of whether the right to accelerate is in existence and capable of being exercised by a foreclosure notice is not controlled by the statute and thus remains a matter of contract between the parties. The judgment compensating plaintiff for the equity lost as a result of the foreclosure is affirmed.

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. MITCHELL v. COMMONWEALTH NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 2313-98-1 PHILLIP ASHBY MITCHELL v. ...

In considering contract claims arising under the Virginia Public Procurement Act, the circuit court had jurisdiction to determine interest due under a judgment and did not err in determining that interest accrued on awarded compensatory damages, but did err in setting the applicable interest rate. The court also erred in determining that post-judgment interest accrued on the pre-judgment interest awarded in two trials and that the judgment debtor had made a timely allocation of payment on the debt; however it did not err in denying the judgment debtor's motion for satisfaction. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded.

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. MITCHELL v. COMMONWEALTH NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 2313-98-1 PHILLIP ASHBY MITCHELL v. ...

In an action to recover damages for personal injury and death resulting from an assault on the victim by a fellow employee, the trial court erred in concluding that the Virginia Worker?s Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy for the claims. Applying the actual risk test, the assault on the victim had no relationship with her status as an employee. Whether intended as flirtatious, merely playful, or as harassment, the assault was purely personal and thus the resulting injury and death did not "arise out of the employment" under Code § 65.2-101. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. HOLDEN v. HOLDEN NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 2614-98-3 ROBERT CHARLES HOLDEN v. ...

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.

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. STEPP, et al. v. FOSTER, et al. January 14, 2000 Record No. 990404 ...

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.

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. WELCH v. COMMONWEALTH NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 1232-98-1 BRUCE ALAN WELCH v. ...

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. WOODSON v. WOODSON NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 1257-99-3 ANTHONY CARL WOODSON v. ...

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. DOUGLAS v. COMMONWEALTH NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 1344-98-2 DWAYNE ANTHONY DOUGLAS v. ...

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., et al. v. PERSINGER NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 1505-99-2 ...

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. NEW RIVER CASTINGS CO., et al. v. MAPLE NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. ...

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. DUTZMAN v. WOODDELL, et al. NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 1735-99-4 JOLEANE DUTZMAN ...

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. MERCER v. COMMONWEALTH January 14, 2000 Record No. 990821 BRIGITTE MERCER v. COMMONWEALTH ...

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. CITY OF SUFFOLK ex rel., HERBERT v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE ...

Issue of postrelease supervision imposed in final order remanded to trial court to fix a term between confines of six months and six years

NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Supreme Court of Virginia. MARTIN v. MARTIN NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Record No. 0129-99-4 RANDALL ALLAN MARTIN v. ...

Trial court did not err in denying motion to suppress evidence of firearm where police officers had reasonable articulable suspicion under totality of circumstances to detain appellant and owner of vehicle gave permission for search resulting in seizure of firearm

No error in trial court?s finding that Commonwealth presented credible and competent evidence to prove object used to intimidate victim in robbery was in fact a firearm

Trial court did not err in admitting four rocks of cocaine recovered from appellant?s accomplice?s pocket into evidence as they were legally relevant; evidence was sufficient to support conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute

Commission erred in setting aside and vacating unappealed decision of deputy commissioner on ground of mutual mistake of fact where evidence did not prove parties shared same mistaken belief as to identity of claimant?s supervisor; res judicata bars claimant?s second claim against employer

Judgment of trial court terminating appellant?s parental rights to her child affirmed where her parental rights were terminated under two subsections of statute and appellant only presented argument on appeal with regard to one of the subsections