Fulltext Opinions

A trial court's order of exhumation rendered pursuant to Code § 32.1-286(C) in order to facilitate DNA testing by a woman claiming to be the daughter of the decedent was not in error. The General Assembly expressly provided that the need of a qualified illegitimate child to prove parentage for the purpose of inheritance is sufficient cause for exhumation. The order is affirmed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

In a proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predators Act, Code §§ 37.2-900 et seq., the circuit court erred in permitting testimony from a particular expert witness for the prisoner, who was qualified in the diagnosis and assessment of sex offenders, but was not shown to be skilled in the treatment of such individuals, as plainly required by the Act. The court further erred in concluding that the Commonwealth failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is a sexually violent predator as defined by the Act. The judgment is reversed, final judgment is entered in favor of the Commonwealth, and the case is remanded for further proceedings under the Act.

In an appeal from defendant's conviction for capital murder for hire, and imposition of the death sentence, after review of numerous assignments of error and completion of the statutorily-mandated review of the imposition of the death penalty, no error is found, and no grounds for setting aside or commuting the sentence of death. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The circuit court did not err in declaring an amendment to a city's zoning ordinance invalid and reinstating two auxiliary special use permits issued to a power company that operates a coal-burning electricity generating plant. The amendment violated Code § 15.2-2307 because it impaired an established vested right to operate the plant, and the revocation of the two auxiliary special use permits pursuant to the amendment was unlawful. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Defendant's conviction for obstruction of justice in violation of Code § 18.2-460(C) is reversed because the Commonwealth failed to prove that, at the time of the defendant's acts, the law enforcement officer to whom the acts were directed was discharging duties related to a violation of or conspiracy to violate one of the various felony offenses listed in the statute. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia is reversed and the indictment is dismissed.

In an assault and battery case, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering remittitur of a jury award of compensatory and punitive damages when, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the jury's award of compensatory damages was not excessive as a matter of law, and an independent review of the $100,000 punitive damages award shows that it is not shocking to the conscience or otherwise inappropriate in light of defendant's egregious conduct, and hence was not excessive as a matter of law. The judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered for plaintiff.

Trial court?s judgment granting the motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of appellee?s car is affirmed and the case is remanded to the trial court

The trial court did not err in determining that Code § 15.2-5121(A) did not apply to a refuse collection and disposal authority created by a group of municipalities under the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act so as to require the constituent municipalities to make the findings mandated therein before the authority could begin disposing of a new type of refuse at its established landfill. Code § 15.2-5121(A) applies only to the initial decision to operate a "system" of refuse collection as defined under the Act and the service of handling a new type of refuse does not constitute the operation of a "system." The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Under the Virginia Public Procurement Act, actions on payment bonds relating to general construction projects under contracts awarded by the Virginia Department of Transportation must be brought within the one-year limitations period contained in Code § 2.2-4341(C). Accordingly, where a plaintiff subcontractor finished work on certain roadway improvement projects more than one year before filing the present litigation, the circuit court did not err in granting the defendant surety company's motion for summary judgment and entering judgment in its favor. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

In a medical malpractice case, the trial court correctly applied Code § 8.01-401.1 to bar a party from introducing certain statements contained in published medical literature because the statements had not been provided to the opposing party 30 days prior to trial. The judgment is affirmed.

Under a commercial lease in which the tenant covenanted not to make any alterations or improvements without prior written permission of the landlord, painting the exterior of the leased structure with a color scheme that will cost over $18,000 to return to pre-lease condition at the end of the tenancy constituted an alteration requiring the landlord's prior permission. The judgment of the trial court denying the tenant's request for an injunction is affirmed.

Trial court?s judgment granting the motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of appellee?s car is affirmed and the case is remanded to the trial court

The circuit court erred in sustaining a plea in bar and ordering the parties to arbitrate a plaintiff?s personal injury claim because the record failed to establish that the parties mutually assented to the terms of a purported arbitration agreement. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a trial on the merits.

Because the evidence was insufficient to sustain an accused's convictions of possession with the intent to distribute a Schedule I controlled substance in violation of Code § 18.2-248 and felonious obstruction of justice in violation of Code § 18.2-460(C), the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia is reversed and the indictments are dismissed.

In protracted civil litigation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing monetary sanctions against six attorneys and their law firms under Code § 8.01-271.1 for filing unfounded motions to vacate a rule to show cause and seeking recusal of the trial judge. Nor was there error in revoking the pro hac vice admission of one of those attorneys. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

In litigation concerning a municipality's consideration of a re-subdivision application involving a residential neighborhood lot, the trial court correctly ruled that the controlling ordinance provision did not permit the municipality to consider improvements intended for the affected property, but erred in affirming the municipality's disapproval of the application. The trial court's judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for entry of an appropriate order.

In an appeal arising from a prosecution for abduction with intent to defile and forcible sodomy, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the trial court did not err in allowing a licensed clinical social worker to testify as an expert witness regarding her diagnosis that the crime victim suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

There is no reversible error in the judgment of the Circuit Court in a medical malpractice action in which plaintiff's counsel did not move the court to admit a particular exhibit until after the evidence was closed, the parties had rested, an alternate juror had been excused, the court had instructed the jury, and the jury had retired to consider its verdict. Even if the exhibit might properly have been admitted into evidence, the trial court was given no timely opportunity to do so. A motion to admit evidence after the evidence has been closed comes too late. The judgment is affirmed.

The Court of Appeals erred in remanding a robbery case for a new sentencing proceeding under Code § 19.2-295.1 ? rather than ordering a new trial on all issues ? where the reversible error lay in the erroneous admission of evidence of other crimes during the guilt phase of a defendant?s trial. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the circuit court for a new trial on the robbery indictment, if the Commonwealth be so advised.

A circuit court had jurisdiction to revoke an attorney's privilege to practice before it, and courts are not required to list with specificity the factual basis for issuing a rule to show cause why such privilege should not be revoked. Thus, an attorney's contrary arguments are deemed meritless, and where the record shows that the attorney received adequate notice of the conduct that the circuit court would consider in deciding whether to revoke his privilege to practice before that court, no error is found in the judgment revoking such privilege. The judgment is affirmed.

Code § 62.1-44.29 provides for representational standing, by an appropriate entity, to seek judicial review of a case decision by the State Water Control Board, as well as for individual standing. In the present case the petition by a foundation dedicated to preservation of the Chesapeake Bay adequately establishes, for purposes of surviving demurrers filed by a manufacturer and the Commonwealth, its representational and individual standing to seek judicial review of the Board?s decision to renew a wastewater discharge permit for the manufacturer's facility. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

In a prosecution for taking of indecent liberties with a minor by a person in a custodial or supervisory relationship, and charges of object sexual penetration, the trial court did not err in permitting a licensed professional counselor to testify as an expert witness that the alleged victim suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The Court of Appeals' judgment ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the witness to testify is affirmed.

Commission did not err in determining that claimant?s efforts were legally sufficient to constitute a cure of his unjustified refusal of selective employment; decision of the commission is affirmed

Commission did not err in awarding benefits to appellee as there was credible evidence to support the commission?s finding that appellee?s disability was causally related to her compensable accident

As appellant failed to adequately preserve his arguments in the trial court, appellant?s convictions for criminal gang participation and malicious wounding are affirmed

Trial court did not err by excluding the proffered evidence; appellant?s convictions are affirmed

Summary affirmance ? no error in commission?s finding that appellant failed to prove she sustained an injury by accident arising out of her employment

Judgment of the trial court is affirmed as the trial court never heard the parties on the questions presented on appeal, and appellant failed to rebut the presumptive verity of the trial court?s order

Trial court did not err in determining that a judge was competent to testify as to the matter he observed; evidence was sufficient to support appellant?s conviction of disorderly conduct

Trial court erred in ruling that a Vermont order concerning child custody and visitation between the parties could not be registered in Virginia; trial court?s March 1, 2006 order is vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court with instruction to enter an order allowing appellant to register the Vermont order in Virginia

Summary affirmance ? commission did not err in finding that appellant failed to prove that appellee was fully capable of returning to his pre-injury work

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence sufficient to convict appellant of distribution of cocaine; appellant?s conviction is affirmed

Commission?s denial of appellant?s application for change in condition is affirmed

Trial court did not err in permitting a forensic scientist to refer to the certificate of analysis during his testimony to refresh his recollection, in admitting the certificate of analysis into evidence, or in allowing the forensic scientist to testify as an expert regarding his analysis; judgment of the trial court affirmed

Trial court did not err in refusing to grant appellant?s proposed jury Instructions 13, 14, and 15 on circumstantial evidence; trial court did err in denying appellant?s Batson motion based on gender with regard to the Commonwealth?s five peremptory strikes; judgment is affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and case remanded

Commission did not err in determining that claimant?s efforts were legally sufficient to constitute a cure of his unjustified refusal of selective employment; decision of the commission is affirmed

Commission did not err in awarding benefits to appellee as there was credible evidence to support the commission?s finding that appellee?s disability was causally related to her compensable accident

Trial court did not err by excluding the proffered evidence; appellant?s convictions are affirmed

As appellant failed to adequately preserve his arguments in the trial court, appellant?s convictions for criminal gang participation and malicious wounding are affirmed

Judgment of the trial court is affirmed as the trial court never heard the parties on the questions presented on appeal, and appellant failed to rebut the presumptive verity of the trial court?s order