Home (page 10)

Tag Archives: Constitutional

Important Opinions January – December 2018 (access required)


The “Important Opinions” that appear each week on the front page of Virginia Lawyers Weekly are those chosen by our editors as the most likely to impact law practice or a given subject area of law. Below is a listing, ...

Read More »

Gag order does not withstand constitutional scrutiny (access required)

A gag order imposed by the district court overseeing suits against the owners of hog farms breached basic First Amendment principles. Background Hundreds of plaintiffs have alleged that nearby hog farms associated with Murphy-Brown LLC are a private nuisance. Plaintiffs ...

Read More »

Healthcare providers challenge state abortion rules (access required)

Five abortion providers challenging Virginia’s regulatory framework as overly burdensome may proceed with their claims. Background This is an action filed by five Virginia healthcare providers’ who offer abortion care or services seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from what they ...

Read More »

Airport Authority properly using toll revenues (access required)

The Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority defeated a challenge to its use of toll funds for metro services to Dulles airport. Background Appellants here have raised a variety of constitutional and statutory challenges to Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority’s ability to use ...

Read More »

Transit authority sued for refusing to run advertisements (access required)

A group that opposes the use of dogs in medical experiments alleged facts that support its claims the Greater Richmond Transit Authority violated its First and Fourteenth rights by rejecting its advertisements. Background Plaintiff White Coat describes itself as a ...

Read More »

Petitioner lacked authorization for successive habeas petition (access required)

Because petitioner failed to obtain the Fourth Circuit’s authorization to file a successive  habeas petition as required under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the court lacks jurisdiction and the claim must be dismissed. Background Plaintiff has ...

Read More »

Colostomy alleviation was serious medical need (access required)

Given evidence that two prison doctors failed to address the plaintiff’s need for approved stoma reversal surgery, summary judgment in their favor on a federal prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claims was not merited. The plaintiff was appointed counsel as to claims ...

Read More »