Fulltext Opinions

In a dispute between Virginia and Georgia corporations over use of a corporate name and various service marks, the trial court did not err in finding that under the common law, due to its continuous use of the name and service marks in Virginia since 1960, the Georgia entity had a superior right thereto, despite the fact that the Virginia corporation had been the first to file a fictitious name certificate respecting the contested name and the first to register the service marks with the State Corporation Commission. The judgment is affirmed.

In an action by 12 limited partnerships alleging negligence and breach of contract by an insurance broker in failing to include them as named insureds on a builders risk insurance policy, the trial court erred in concluding after a hearing that the plaintiffs could show no cognizable damages. When no loss has occurred that would have been covered by the requested insurance policy, the measure of damages for failure to procure insurance is the amount paid by the intended insured as the premium. The judgment is reversed.

The Court of Appeals erred in finding that a defendant's participation in the Detention Center Incarceration Program was merely a condition of probation and that the issue whether such participation should be credited against an outstanding sentence was a matter within a trial court's discretion. Participation in the Program is incarceration, and cannot be ignored upon revocation of probation where doing so would enlarge the sentence imposed in a sentencing order that has become final under Rule 1:1. Under the ends of justice exceptions to Rules 5:25 and 5A:18, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions for remand to the trial court for entry of an appropriate order.

In an appeal from a capital murder conviction based on a killing committed in the commission of robbery or attempted robbery, the circuit court and the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that evidence that the defendant had committed an assault and a "purse-snatching" robbery several weeks before the murder was admissible, but under Code § 8.01-678 and cases applying that statute, the admission of such evidence was harmless error, because it plainly appears from the record that the defendant had a fair trial and that the verdict and judgment were not substantially affected by the admission of such evidence. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Appeal dismissed without prejudice as this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the order appealed from is interlocutory and does not adjudicate the principles of the cause

Trial court erred by applying the incorrect standard in deciding whether to terminate husband?s custody and visitation; case remanded for reconsideration in order to apply the proper standard for modification of a custody and visitation decree

No reversible error found in trial court?s admissions of the challenged hearsay statements and the eyewitness identifications; trial court did not err in denying appellant?s motions for mistrial and in finding evidence sufficient to support appellant?s convictions

Trial court erred in finding husband had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that wife cohabited with another in a relationship analogous to marriage and in refusing to terminate husband?s spousal support obligation; no error in trial court?s finding that wife is able to be employed and its refusal to award husband attorney?s fees based upon provisions of property settlement agreement

Trial court erred in finding husband had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that wife cohabited with another in a relationship analogous to marriage and in refusing to terminate husband?s spousal support obligation; no error in trial court?s finding that wife is able to be employed and its refusal to award husband attorney?s fees based upon provisions of property settlement agreement

Commission did not err in finding that decedent?s fatal injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and in ruling that the decedent did not disobey a known safety rule; case remanded for determination of whether failure to use a safety harness and failing to use the buddy system bar recovery under Code Section 65.2-306

Trial court did not err in classifying and valuing certain assets, in ordering the sale of the martial residence, in awarding the wife custody of the children, and in fixing support arrearages

Appeal dismissed without prejudice as this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the order appealed from is interlocutory and does not adjudicate the principles of the cause

Trial court erred by applying the incorrect standard in deciding whether to terminate husband?s custody and visitation; case remanded for reconsideration in order to apply the proper standard for modification of a custody and visitation decree

No reversible error found in trial court?s admissions of the challenged hearsay statements and the eyewitness identifications; trial court did not err in denying appellant?s motions for mistrial and in finding evidence sufficient to support appellant?s convictions

Trial court erred in finding husband had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that wife cohabited with another in a relationship analogous to marriage and in refusing to terminate husband?s spousal support obligation; no error in trial court?s finding that wife is able to be employed and its refusal to award husband attorney?s fees based upon provisions of property settlement agreement

Trial court erred in finding husband had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that wife cohabited with another in a relationship analogous to marriage and in refusing to terminate husband?s spousal support obligation; no error in trial court?s finding that wife is able to be employed and its refusal to award husband attorney?s fees based upon provisions of property settlement agreement

Commission did not err in finding that decedent?s fatal injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and in ruling that the decedent did not disobey a known safety rule; case remanded for determination of whether failure to use a safety harness and failing to use the buddy system bar recovery under Code Section 65.2-306

Trial court did not err in classifying and valuing certain assets, in ordering the sale of the martial residence, in awarding the wife custody of the children, and in fixing support arrearages

In considering a habeas corpus petition, the petitioner's various claims with respect to the guilt and penalty phases of his trial are rejected as being procedurally defaulted or without substantive merit, but the failure of his attorney to object during the penalty phase to a verdict form omitting a required sentencing option, as mandated in Powell v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 512, 552 S.E.2d 344 (2001), constituted ineffective assistance of counsel prejudicial to the petitioner's defense. A limited grant of the writ is issued and the matter remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

In considering a habeas corpus petition, the petitioner's various claims with respect to the guilt phase of his trial are rejected as being procedurally defaulted or without substantive merit, but the failure of his attorney to object during the penalty phase to a verdict form omitting a required sentencing option, as mandated in Powell v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 512, 552 S.E.2d 344 (2001), constituted ineffective assistance of counsel prejudicial to the petitioner's defense. A limited grant of the writ is issued and the matter remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

Commission did not err in concluding that appellee could recover medical benefits notwithstanding her failure to specifically request medical benefits in her application to the commission

Trial court erred when it classified the parties? assets as marital property notwithstanding its conclusion that appellant sustained his burden of proving retraceability; equitable distribution award reversed in its entirety and case remanded to trial court

Summary affirmance ? no error in trial court?s denial of appellant?s bill of complaint

Summary affirmance ? commission did not err in finding no evidence that Consolidated Coin Caterers Corporation and its insurer engaged in unlawful medical management of claimant?s case

Trial court did not err in refusing to admit parol evidence on the issue of whether appellant intended to gift his premarital separate property interest in the marital home and in granting attorney?s fees to wife

No error in the jury finding appellant guilty of object sexual penetration of a child under the age of thirteen years

Trial court did not err in finding evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of assault

Trial court did not err in denying appellant?s motion to suppress as the court found the officer was acting as a private citizen

Commission did not err in concluding that appellee could recover medical benefits notwithstanding her failure to specifically request medical benefits in her application to the commission

Trial court erred when it classified the parties? assets as marital property notwithstanding its conclusion that appellant sustained his burden of proving retraceability; equitable distribution award reversed in its entirety and case remanded to trial court

Summary affirmance ? no error in trial court?s denial of appellant?s bill of complaint

Summary affirmance ? commission did not err in finding no evidence that Consolidated Coin Caterers Corporation and its insurer engaged in unlawful medical management of claimant?s case

Trial court did not err in refusing to admit parol evidence on the issue of whether appellant intended to gift his premarital separate property interest in the marital home and in granting attorney?s fees to wife

No error in the jury finding appellant guilty of object sexual penetration of a child under the age of thirteen years

Trial court did not err in finding evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of assault

Trial court did not err in denying appellant?s motion to suppress as the court found the officer was acting as a private citizen

Summary affirmance ? trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant?s appeal of the juvenile and domestic relations district court?s decision as the evidence failed to show that appellant?s inability to pay child support was ?not due to his own voluntary act? in committing a crime, which resulted in his incarceration

Summary affirmance ? commission did not err in calculating appellee?s pre-injury average weekly wage as $750

Trial court did not err in convicting appellant of petit larceny of a library book as evidence was sufficient to prove asportation of the book

Summary affirmance ? trial court did not err in granting the adoption petition as the evidence supports the trial court?s findings that appellant withheld consent contrary to the best interests of the child and that her continued relationship with the child would be detrimental