+
| Home > @@ -68,33 +60,386 @@ > Supreme Court of Virginia > - Supreme Court of Virginia Opinions | + Supreme Court of Virginia Opinions and Published Orders
Supreme Court of Virginia Opinions
+ +Supreme Court of Virginia Opinions and Published Orders
As of February 8, 2008 all opinions are Adobe Acrobat PDF documents. The Adobe Acrobat Viewer (free from Adobe) allows you to view and print PDF documents.
- -Click here for Supreme Court of Virginia Opinions Revised within the last six-months -030592 King George County Service Authority v. Presidential Service Company 03/05/2004 -The circuit court was correct in specifically enforcing an agreement for the purchase of a private water company's existing water system by a county service authority under an agreement ratified by the authority's board, but erred in directing the authority to purchase other water and sewer system facilities because there was no resolution of the authority's board authorizing or ratifying a further agreement. The decree is affirmed in part and reversed in part. + +
210389 McKeithen v. City of Richmond 10/19/2023 +In an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of the escheat provision of Code § 58.1-3967, where a city obtained a judicial sale of a parcel of property subject to a statutory lien for delinquent taxes and the sale proceeds wholly satisfied the city?s tax lien, the holding of the circuit court that the statute required it to award a portion of the surplus sale proceeds to the city rather than an unsatisfied junior lienor, while required by the text of the escheat provision, nevertheless violates Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia concerning the taking of private property. The circuit court erred in failing to so rule, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. +
+ +220536 Moison v. Commonwealth (ORDER) 10/19/2023 +Considering defendant?s appeal from his convictions on multiple counts of aggravated sexual battery by a parent under Code § 18.2-67.3 and taking indecent liberties with a child under Code § 18.2-370.1, in which he argued that the circuit court erred in determining that the proffered testimony of a witness indicating that the defendant remained outside of the witness? home with her for several hours instead of accompanying his two minor daughters inside to sleep constituted inadmissible alibi testimony not timely disclosed pursuant to Rule 3A:11(d)(2), the Court of Appeals erred in addressing the merits of defendant?s argument where the defendant?s assignment of error indicated that the proffered testimony was not evidence of an alibi because it was instead offered to impeach by contradiction the testimony of his daughters, who were the victims. However, defendant never argued at trial that the proffered testimony was offered for impeachment purposes; rather, he only argued that it was not alibi evidence. As a result, defendant?s argument was waived. That portion of the Court of Appeals? judgment is reversed, but judgment upholding the conviction is affirmed. +
+ +220715 Commonwealth v. McBride 10/19/2023 +In an appeal by the Commonwealth from a decision by the Court of Appeals of Virginia, it is held that Rule 3A:15 does not preclude the circuit court from reconsidering a motion to strike that was erroneously granted in a criminal case. While the Double Jeopardy Clause imposes some restrictions on a trial court?s authority to reconsider a motion to strike, those limitations do not apply here. Consequently, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and final judgment is entered on this appeal in favor of the Commonwealth. +
+ +230172 Anderson v. Clarke 10/12/2023 +On a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the Virginia Department of Corrections (?VDOC?) failed to timely release the petitioner from prison because it undercalculated his earned sentence credits (?ESCs?), pursuant to amendments to Code § 53.1-202.3 adopted by the General Assembly in 2020, the judgment of the circuit court concluding that he was not entitled to immediate release is affirmed. +
+ +211071 Monroe v. Monroe 07/20/2023 +In a shareholder-derivative suit by the minority shareholder of a closely held Virginia corporation against his wife, the majority shareholder, in which the trial court rejected the derivative claim and imposed sanctions for pursuing it, the plaintiff had standing to appeal the sanctions award entered against him personally as the ?plaintiff? under Code § 13.1-672.5. Because the sanctions order violated Rule 1:1, the May 12, 2021 Final Order was the final order in this case, and the order granting sanctions three months later is vacated. +
+ +220665 Prease v. Clarke 07/06/2023 +On a state prisoner?s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that he was wrongfully denied earned sentence credits on his convictions for attempted aggravated murder that, if awarded, would result in his immediate release from incarceration, the petition is granted. By its plain language, Code § 53.1-202.3 establishes that all inmates are eligible for expanded earned sentence credits unless they were convicted of an offense that is enumerated under subsection A, and here the petitioner was convicted of attempted aggravated murder, which is not one of the enumerated offenses that is ineligible for expanded earned sentence credits under subsection A. Nor is attempted aggravated murder one of the other specifically enumerated offenses ineligible for expanded earned sentence credits under the statute. Thus, there is no basis in the governing statutes for denying the petitioner expanded earned sentence credits on his attempted aggravated murder convictions. The petition is granted, and a writ of habeas corpus is issued to the Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections ordering that this prisoner be released from custody. +
+ +220223 Tomlin v. Commonwealth 06/29/2023 +The defendant left her 80-year-old mother in a squalid condition lying on the floor of her apartment for at least two days, resulting in her mother?s need for emergency medical care and hospitalization. The trial court convicted defendant of abuse or neglect of an incapacitated adult causing injury in violation of Code § 18.2-369(B). The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, as does this Court. +
+ +210988 City of Hampton v. Williamson 06/08/2023 +In a city?s appeal from a circuit court decision to grant a petition for a writ of mandamus, requiring production of certain documents ancillary to a grievance panel hearing, having provided the grievant with its list of witnesses and a binder with the documents furnished to the grievance panel, the city has clearly met its obligation under Code §15.2-1507(A)(10)(b)(3) and, regardless of whether the city intends to use the documents in the grievance binder, as it originally suggested, or to rely solely on witness testimony, a writ of mandamus does not lie here. The circuit court?s judgment is reversed, and the petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed. +
+ +220378 Walker v. Commonwealth 06/01/2023 +In an appeal from a conviction for bank robbery and use of a firearm in commission of robbery, second or subsequent offense under the provisions of Code § 18.2-53.1, the convictions are affirmed. The argument that the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution requires a court to pre-screen eyewitness identification testimony before the eyewitness can be permitted to make an identification of the defendant for the first time in open court is rejected. In addition, the jury was properly instructed that the defendant was subject to the second or subsequent offense provisions of Code § 18.2-53.1 for using a firearm in the commission of robbery. The convictions are affirmed. +
+ +210779 Gloss v. Wheeler 05/18/2023 +In a petition for mandamus and injunctive relief brought by two residents of a county alleging a violation of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (?VFOIA?), the circuit court erred in granting a motion to strike by the defendant Board of Supervisors (?Board?) members on the theory that the gathering at issue ? a meeting of the police department?s Citizens Advisory Board ? did not constitute a meeting under VFOIA. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. +
+ +220072 Oreze Healthcare v. Eastern Shore Community Svcs Board 05/04/2023 +In a breach of contract claim relating to a lease of real property, the circuit court erred in holding that the plaintiff?s conveyance of the real property to a third party prohibited it from pursuing a breach of contract claim against the defendant based upon a prior lease agreement for that property between the parties. Plaintiff?s sale of the property to a third party after the lease was terminated did not transfer that claim to the third party as successor in interest simply by execution of the deed. While plaintiff could have assigned its right to the breach of contract claim to the third party, here the deed conveying the property was silent as to that claim and ? absent an assignment ? the deed could neither extinguish plaintiff?s right to pursue the claim nor transfer the claim to the third party. For the reasons set forth in the present opinion, the circuit court?s judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. +
+ +220643 Brown v. Virginia State Bar 05/04/2023 +In an appeal of right from an attorney disciplinary proceeding before a three judge panel, the circuit court?s finding that this lawyer violated Rule 1.7(a)(2) by engaging in sexual relations with his divorce client during the representation is supported by the record, and the finding that he added a fault ground for divorce against his client, as well as other findings of fact with which the lawyer takes issue, are likewise supported by the record. Additionally, the Virginia State Bar, in its assignment of cross-error, merely asked for a reversal and final judgment as to the claimed Rule 2.1 violation, with the previously issued public reprimand on another proven violation extended to encompass the Rule 2.1 violation in the event of a reversal. However, an affirmative finding of a Rule 2.1 violation would require a remand and further sanctions proceeding, which was not requested. Therefore, given that the Bar did not ask for a rules-required remand in the event of a reversal, the Court does not consider the Bar?s assignment of cross-error. As a result, the circuit court?s decision is affirmed. +
+ +220116 Suffolk City School Board v. Wahlstrom 04/27/2023 +In the plaintiff?s action alleging that a city School Board and two school officials violated the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (?VFOIA?), Code § 2.2-3700 et seq., by denying her free entry to a public meeting of the Board, the trial court did not err in awarding relief to the plaintiff because the Board violated the statute, or in denying her claims against the individual defendants. The case is remanded for determination of the fees and costs she is entitled to recover since she substantially prevailed in the suit. +
+ +220034 Williams v. Commonwealth 04/20/2023 +The appellant pled guilty to an amended misdemeanor charge for obstruction of justice, and later filed a petition for expungement of the original felony charge of accessory-to-murder charge, which the Commonwealth did not oppose but the circuit court denied. Where a petitioner is convicted of a lesser included offense of the original charge, the original charge does not qualify for expungement. When a charge is not a lesser included offense, inquiry turns on whether it is a completely separate and unrelated charge and the petitioner may occupy the ?status of innocent.? Determining whether an amended charge is completely separate is not a mechanical application of the test under Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). Rather, a court should (1) compare the conceptual similarities and differences between the charges and (2) examine whether they share a common nucleus of operative facts. The burden is on a petitioner to show that the original charge, later amended, qualifies as ?otherwise dismissed.? Here, the circuit court did not rely on a Blockburger comparison of the elements but on Code § 19.2-231, governing amendment of a charging instrument, to determine whether the amended obstruction of justice charge was completely separate from and unrelated to the original charge. Given this opinion?s clarification of the standard that applies to review of expungement petitions when the claim is that the original charge was ?otherwise dismissed,? the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded for new consideration of the petition. +
+ +220185 DeLuca v. Commonwealth (ORDER) 04/13/2023 +The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in DeLuca v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 567 (2021), holding that because the testimony of his own counsel was never ?prejudicial? to him, the attorney?s role as both lawyer and witness was not automatically prohibited by the lawyer-witness rule, and the attorney acted at all relevant times as the defendant?s counsel, both nominally and in fact, thus this defendant?s right to counsel was not violated. Further, because the record supports the conclusions that, despite his claims at the hearing, the defendant was not mistaken about his reporting obligation when he entered certain pleas, and that the motion to withdraw was filed in bad faith, the trial court did not err in refusing to allow him to withdraw his guilty pleas. +
+ +220058 Ranger v. Hyundai Motor America 04/06/2023 +In an appeal from the circuit court?s grant of summary judgment in a case arising under Virginia?s ?Lemon Law,? Code § 59.1-207.9 et seq., to satisfy the refund requirements under the statute, a manufacturer is not required to pay pre-litigation attorney?s fees. In this case, because the manufacturer?s refund satisfied the requirements of the Lemon Law, the trial court?s grant of summary judgment is affirmed. +
+ +220039 Yourko v. Yourko 03/30/2023 +In an appeal from a decision in a divorce case on a husband?s motion to amend the final decree, the equitable distribution order, and a Military Pension Division Order (?MPDO?), in which a husband contended that the parties had erred in calculation of his disposable retired pay and, as a result, the MPDO required him to pay approximately 140% of his disposable retirement pay in violation of federal law, and further sought to have the indemnification provisions in the MPDO struck as void ab initio, the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. 214 (2017) to forbid courts from recognizing indemnification provisions related to military retirement pay in property settlement agreements, and further erred by overruling Owen v. Owen, 14 Va. App. 623 (1992) and its progeny. Regarding division of military retirement benefits, federal law does not prevent a husband and wife from entering into an agreement to provide a set level of payments, the amount of which is determined by considering disability benefits as well as retirement benefits. Nor does federal law bar courts from upholding such agreements or from enforcing indemnification provisions that may be included to ensure that payments are maintained as intended by the parties. The Court of Appeals? decision is reversed, and the circuit court?s decision dismissing the husband?s motion to amend the final decree is reinstated. +
+ +211143 Berry v. Board of Supervisors 03/23/2023 +In an appeal by resident taxpayers from a circuit court decision dismissing claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against a county Board of Supervisors, the County?s ?Continuity Ordinance? did not authorize the Board to consider and adopt a revised zoning ordinance in an electronic meeting, and neither that Ordinance nor Code § 15.2-1413 conflicted with or superseded VFOIA?s open meeting requirements. Nor did the General Assembly, in 2020 budget enactments, supplant VFOIA?s open meeting requirements or authorize the Board to adopt the zoning modification at meetings conducted by electronic means. The circuit court erred in concluding that the Board?s adoption of the revised zoning ordinance mooted the plaintiffs? declaratory judgment action and in dismissing the residents? complaint as premature. Neither the statute, nor the Continuity Ordinance, nor budget enactments by the General Assembly authorized the Board to consider and adopt the zoning modification in meetings conducted by electronic communication means without a quorum of the public body or any member of the governing board physically assembled at one location. Its purported adoption was void ab initio. The judgment below is reversed, and final judgment is entered on this appeal. +
+ +211126 Commonwealth v. Barney 03/16/2023 +In an appeal from a conviction where the defendant had handed a note to a store cashier demanding money or her life, the cashier took the threat seriously because she saw the defendant place her hand in a pocket and point what appeared to be a handgun at the cashier. A jury convicted the defendant of using a firearm during the commission of a robbery. The judgment of the Court of Appeals (vacating the jury verdict, holding that the jury instructions were flawed and that no rational jury could find that the defendant had a firearm in her pocket) is reversed, rejecting both grounds relied upon by the Court of Appeals. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, the conviction entered by the circuit court is reinstated, and final judgment is entered for the Commonwealth. +
+ +220230 Horn v. Webb 02/09/2023 +In litigation between neighboring parties owning land near a lake, the evidence supports the circuit court?s rejection of a claimed prescriptive easement for the defendants to store small watercraft, such as canoes, on the plaintiff?s land, and an award of compensatory damages for such storage is affirmed. However, the judgment is reversed in connection with the claim of a prescriptive easement to dock a boat on the plaintiff?s property. Even if it is assumed that the original docking was permissive, the prior sale of the land vitiated the permission granted by the original owners. No evidence indicates that any of the subsequent owners granted any kind of permission to dock a boat on their land. Defendants established the existence of a prescriptive easement to dock a boat as well as to maintain the electrical wiring and outlet to charge the boat. Finally, award of punitive damages is reversed, because nothing in the record establishes malice on the part of the defendants in filing their own lawsuit to vindicate their property rights. Thus, the judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for entry of an order consistent with the judgment of this Court. +
+ +211021 Morgan v. Board of Supervisors 02/02/2023 +In an action by several homeowners seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the Board of Supervisors of Hanover County violated Virginia law when it approved rezoning and special-exception requests that authorized construction of a large distribution and warehousing facility nearby, the circuit court erred in finding that the homeowners? allegations did not allege a sufficient factual basis for standing. The court also erred when it dismissed Counts VI, VII, and VIII on the alternative ground that those Counts asserted speculative claims not ripe for adjudication. No opinion is offered, however, on the merits or demerits of the various claims pleaded by the homeowners or what, if any, judicial relief should be awarded at the conclusion of this case. The appealed judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. +
+ +211226 Colas v. Tyree 01/26/2023 +In a case arising from a police detective?s shooting of the decedent, testimony about the circumstances was received from the defendant detective called an adverse witness by the plaintiffs. The detective testified that, when he fired the fatal shot, he was acting in defense of another officer, because the decedent (who was experiencing acute mental distress) had been tackled by that officer, had fallen to the ground, had picked up a knife, and was holding the knife in the air in close proximity to the other officer, who was lying on the ground next to him. The plaintiffs? own uncontradicted evidence established that the defendant detective was justified in firing the shot. Applying the adverse party witness doctrine, the estate is bound by this uncontradicted evidence. Accordingly, the judgment awarding the plaintiffs damages on a theory of battery is reversed and final judgment is entered for the defendant detective. +
+ +210893 Forness v. Commonwealth 01/19/2023 +In an appeal from denial of a petition to expunge a felony arrest record, since every driving-while-intoxicated charge implicates the same underlying offense, a violation of Code § 18.2-266, it is clear that Felony DWI and DWI Second involve the same offense but with different sentencing enhancements: the difference between the two charges is one of degree and not of kind. In the present case, amendment of the arrest warrant related only to the sentencing enhancement sought to be imposed, not the underlying offense. Given that the actual offense that petitioner was charged with remained the same, it simply cannot be said that the amendment resulted in a completely separate and unrelated charge. Accordingly, the amendment did not render the original Felony DWI charge ?otherwise dismissed? for the purposes of Code § 19.2-392.2, and therefore, the circuit court properly dismissed the expungement petition. +
+ +211032 County of Isle of Wight v. International Paper Company 12/29/2022 +On remand from the decision in International Paper Co. v. County of Isle of Wight, 299 Va. 150 (2020), the circuit court held that International Paper had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the County?s tax scheme violated the requirement of uniform taxation in the Constitution of Virginia, and it ordered a full refund of the taxpayer?s machinery and tools tax (?M&T tax?) for the applicable year. The County?s appeal from this decision, contending that the circuit court erred in finding its tax scheme unconstitutional, and, in the alternative, that it erred in the relief it granted, is rejected, and the circuit court?s judgment is affirmed across the board. +
+ +211033 Morgan v. Commonwealth 12/29/2022 +In an appeal from a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon while intoxicated in violation of Code § 18.2-308.012, the rule of lenity applies, an ancient maxim of the law that all such statutes must be construed strictly against the state and favorably to the liberty of the citizen. By enacting this statute, the General Assembly specifically targeted persons permitted to carry concealed handguns and sought to prevent them from carrying a handgun in a public place while intoxicated, it did not envision preventing the transportation of a handgun within a bag located in a vehicle. Rather, the legislature sought something more specific, intending to deter intoxicated individuals from physically carrying a concealed handgun ? whether it be in their waistband, pocket, etc. ? in and out of public establishments. In this case, the defendant had a valid concealed weapons permit and provided it to the officer during the traffic stop. He did not physically carry the handgun on his person, but rather, the handgun was holstered in a small, zipped backpack on the front passenger seat of his vehicle. Under these facts, this defendant did not ?carry? the handgun as contemplated by Code § 18.2-308.012, and his conviction was in error. The conviction is reversed. +
+ +211050 Arch Insurance Company v. FCVbank 12/29/2022 +In a surety company?s appeal from a circuit court judgment striking its conversion and unjust enrichment claims (after disallowing a forensic accounting asset-tracing expert to testify), the governing legal principle is that when a company obtains a right through subrogation, it is placed in the position of its subrogor and can have no greater rights than those of the subrogor. Both of the surety company?s assignments of error stem from the circuit court?s underlying legal conclusion that it was incapable of demonstrating a priority right to the disputed funds as a matter of law. Because the surety company?s rights were limited to those of its subrogor, a mechanical contracting company, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. +
+ +211048 Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co. 12/08/2022 +The judgment of the circuit court granting a first amended complaint in interpleader with accompanying prayer for declaratory relief filed by the plaintiff insurer, and apportioning the interpleaded funds, is affirmed. +
+ +220004 GEICO Advantage Insurance Co. v. Miles 12/01/2022 +In an appeal by two related insurance companies from a decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment to an insured on the issue of whether each of the two insurance policies at issue provided separate tranches of insurance for uninsured motorist (?UM?) coverage and underinsured motorist (?UIM?) coverage, the circuit court erred in its interpretation of Code § 38.2-2206 and the insurance policies. The statute and each of the applicable policies provide only a single tranche of coverage applicable to both UM and UIM claims. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and final judgment is entered for the insurers. +
+ +220130 Appalachian Voices v. State Corporation Commission 10/27/2022 +In an appeal by a nonprofit environmental organization from an order of the State Corporation Commission (?SCC? or ?the Commission?) that approved a petition by Virginia Electric and Power Company (?VEPCO?) to obtain a rate-adjustment clause pursuant to Code § 56-585.1(A)(5)(e), the Commission did not fail to apply the proper legal standard to the utility?s request to recover projected costs of purchasing allowances through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (?RGGI?), a cap-and-trade market regulating CO2 emissions by electric utilities. The judgment of the Commission is affirmed. +
+ + 210787 The Daily Press v. Commonwealth 10/20/2022
+In consolidated appeals challenging three rulings by the circuit court relating to a pending criminal case in which a police officer was indicted for second-degree murder of a suspect during an arrest, and other offenses, three trial court holdings are reversed ? barring public access to a pretrial bail hearing, keeping certain motions and exhibits under seal, and finding that the City of Newport News lacked standing to oppose any public access to sealed documents that it had previously produced in response to a subpoena. The proceedings are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
+ Combined case with Record No. 210827
210827 City of Newport News v. Commonwealth 10/20/2022
+In consolidated appeals challenging three rulings by the circuit court relating to a pending criminal case in which a police officer was indicted for second-degree murder of a suspect during an arrest, and other offenses, three trial court holdings are reversed ? barring public access to a pretrial bail hearing, keeping certain motions and exhibits under seal, and finding that the City of Newport News lacked standing to oppose any public access to sealed documents that it had previously produced in response to a subpoena. The proceedings are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
+ Combined case with Record No. 210787
210848 Hawkins v. Town of South Hill 10/20/2022 +In an appeal from the partial denial of a mandamus petition, turning on the scope of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (?VFOIA?) personnel information, in which the petitioner requested documents related to employment disputes in the defendant town, as well as attorney?s fees and costs, because the circuit court applied a definition of ?personnel information? different from that outlined below, the judgment is reversed and this matter is remanded for the court to review and, if necessary, redact and release the documents at issue. Since the petitioner failed to obtain a ruling from the circuit court as to who, if anyone, was the prevailing party or the issue of attorney?s fees and costs, he has waived those issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded. +
+ +210972 Williams v. Janson 10/20/2022 +In an appeal by owners of land from a circuit court order that they convey it in fee simple after an auction was held, the auction, as advertised, was an auction with reserve because the advertisement did not state that it would be an absolute auction. The owners never explicitly stated that the auction was absolute or without reserve during the pre-auction announcement; nor was any statement made that limited the ability to withdraw the property from sale, reject bids or otherwise nullify the auction. A statement that property will be sold to the high bidder is a mere declaration of intention to hold an auction at which bids will be received. Such statements are usually merely preliminary negotiation, not intended or reasonably understood to affect legal relations, and the owner?s statement was virtually identical to language included in the advertisement, which plaintiff conceded indicated that the auction was an auction with reserve. Accordingly, the circuit court erred in its determination that the auction was an absolute auction, and its judgment compelling conveyance of the property to the plaintiff is reversed. Final judgment is entered for the defendant owners. +
+ +210800 Ashland, LLC v. Virginia-American Water Co. 10/13/2022 +In an action by a corporate customer of a water supply utility for an alleged breach of contract for the supply of water, the circuit court erred in concluding that Article IX, Section 4 of the Constitution of Virginia deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the contract claim. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. +
+ +210934 Cornell v. Benedict 10/13/2022 +In an appeal from the granting of pleas in bar by two individuals associated with a counseling and psychotherapy service ? who joined its board of directors during the last months of its operation ? the judgment is affirmed. The circuit court did not err in sustaining these individuals? pleas in bar because Code § 40.1-2 adopts a narrower definition of ?employer? than the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and thus excludes individuals from implied employer liability under Code § 40.1-29(J). The judgment is affirmed.
-030634 Harrison-Wyatt LLC v. Ratliff 03/05/2004 -The trial court correctly ruled that where a surface owner of a tract of land, or his predecessor-in-title, has conveyed all the coal in and under his land, title to the coal bed methane gas in the tract has not passed to the coal owner along with the coal. The trial court's judgment is affirmed. (Revised 4/1/04) +
210935 Taylor v. AIDS-Hilfe Koln e.V. 10/13/2022 +The circuit court properly admitted to probate the will of a decedent who held dual citizenship in Germany and in the United States. The court also appointed an administrator for the estate and awarded the proceeds of a brokerage account to a German charity. In review of a challenge to these decisions on a number of grounds, it is concluded that the circuit court properly admitted the will to probate and appointed an administrator for the decedent?s estate. The decision of the circuit court granting relief on Counts II and III of the complaint is reversed and vacated, and final judgment is entered.
-030637 Washington v. United Parcel Service 03/05/2004 -In a workers' compensation appeal, the Court of Appeals erred in addressing an issue of causal connection that was not properly before that court and not properly before the Commission. As a result, there was no basis for concluding that the claimant would be unjustly enriched by receiving benefits to which he was not entitled. A prior award of benefits remains valid, and the refusal to assess a 20% penalty was error. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. (Revised 3/8/04) +
210320 AV Automotive, LLC v. Gebreyessus 09/15/2022 +In an appeal by automobile dealership entities from a circuit court?s decision to impose sanctions against them under Code § 8.01-271.1, awarding all attorney?s fees claimed by a terminated salesperson, the circuit court was within its discretion to award sanctions against the appellants. However, the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding sanctions for appellants? failure to notify one of its employees of his expert witness designation and abused its discretion in failing to segregate the sanctionable claim from the attorney?s fees requested. Accordingly, the sanctions award is reversed, and the case is remanded the circuit court for a recalculation of the attorney?s fees commensurate with this opinion.
-942223 Royal v. Commonwealth 06/09/1995 -The defendant was indicted for the capital murder of a police officer and use of a firearm in the commission of murder. He entered pleas of guilty on both charges and received sentences of death for the capital murder charge and three years imprisonment for the firearms charge. The defendant's appeal of the imposition of the death penalty is considered along with the automatic review of the death sentence to which he is entitled under Code § 17.110.1. No reversible error is found among the issues presented; the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. +
210501 Fines v. Rappahannock Area Community Services Board 09/08/2022 +Examining six attributes pertinent to a determination whether a particular entity occupies the status of a municipal corporation, the defendant board lacks two of the criteria entirely and only possesses some of the characteristics of two others. Prior case law indicates that the more statutory autonomy the entity possesses and exercises the more likely it is to be declared a municipal corporation, and here ? when compared to other entities operating under more autonomous statutory authority ? the defendant board looks less like a municipal corporation than an auxiliary of the establishing authorities. Here, the circuit court erred in finding that the defendant board possessed sufficient attributes of a municipal corporation. The pivotal point in this case is whether the defendant board is immune from tort liability and case law has consistently described the nature and scope of a claimed immunity as a matter of substantive state law. The circuit court erred in granting the plea in bar, as the defendant is not entitled to sovereign immunity. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
+ 210391 Appalachian Power Co. v. State Corporation Commission 08/18/2022
+In consolidated appeals by an electric power company and the Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Counsel Division, challenging various rulings made by the State Corporation Commission during its triennial review of the power company?s rates, terms, and conditions pursuant to Code § 56-585.1, the Commission erred in finding that it was not reasonable for the company to record its costs associated with early retirement of certain coal-fired power plants as asset impairments. The Commission did not err by implementing depreciation rates from a 2017 depreciation study for the years 2018 and 2019, did not err by refusing to apply Code § 56-585.1(E) retroactively, and did not err in finding that certain of the power company?s affiliate expenses to be reasonable. All remaining issues in both appeals are now moot. For the reasons discussed in the present opinion, the disposition of the Commission is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
+ Combined case with Record No. 210634
210634 Office of the Attorney General v. State Corporation Commission 08/18/2022
+In consolidated appeals by an electric power company and the Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Counsel Division, challenging various rulings made by the State Corporation Commission during its triennial review of the power company?s rates, terms, and conditions pursuant to Code § 56-585.1, the Commission erred in finding that it was not reasonable for the company to record its costs associated with early retirement of certain coal-fired power plants as asset impairments. The Commission did not err by implementing depreciation rates from a 2017 depreciation study for the years 2018 and 2019, did not err by refusing to apply Code § 56-585.1(E) retroactively, and did not err in finding that certain of the power company?s affiliate expenses to be reasonable. All remaining issues in both appeals are now moot. For the reasons discussed in the present opinion, the disposition of the Commission is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
+ Combined case with Record No. 210391
210640 Ames Center, L.C. v. Soho Arlington, LLC 08/18/2022 +Claiming the status of a third-party beneficiary of a long-term ground lease, a developer filed a declaratory-judgment action against the lessee of an adjoining property, seeking to resolve conflicting interpretations of a lease provision. After holding that the developer was a third-party beneficiary, the circuit court concluded that its work was done and dismissed the case as having no further justiciable controversies to resolve. The dismissal is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court to resolve the remaining contest over the scope of the developer?s rights as a third-party beneficiary of the lease. +
+ +210569 Hill v. Commonwealth 08/11/2022 +The circuit court?s disposition, finding a convicted defendant in violation of probation and sentencing him to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence, is affirmed. The Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the circuit court?s 2020 revocation order. The defendant?s misconduct occurred during an expressly stated period of probation that necessarily implied a corresponding period of sentence suspension. The circuit court?s order was consistent with, not violative of, the revocation power authorized by Code § 19.2-306(A), and the judgment is affirmed. +
+ +220113 Haley v. Virginia State Bar 08/11/2022 +In an appeal from a decision of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, no error is found. The Board has broad discretion when imposing sanctions, and on appeal the penalty imposed will be viewed as prima facie correct and will not be disturbed unless it is determined, upon independent review of the record, that the penalty was not justified by the evidence or was contrary to law. Here, the attorney?s 18-month suspension was an appropriate sanction. The evidence established that he engaged in a long pattern of dishonest conduct in multiple jurisdictions and had previously been disciplined for similar forms of misconduct. The Board has the authority to set the effective date of a sanction and, in determining the effective date of a sanction, its decision is subject to review for an abuse of discretion. The Board did not abuse its discretion when it refused to stay the attorney?s suspension under the circumstances of this case. +
+ +210530 Commonwealth v. Kilpatrick (ORDER) 08/04/2022 +In a prosecution on multiple counts of computer solicitation of a minor in violation of Code § 18.2-374.3(C), the circuit court?s exclusion at trial of expert testimony offered to show that the defendant did not believe he was communicating with a minor, and that he lacked any motive to solicit a minor, if error, was harmless as a matter of law. In this case, the appellant has waived any argument that the claimed error in excluding the defense expert?s testimony violated his due process rights or any other constitutional principle. Thus, the decision may be upheld on the ground that any evidentiary error involved is harmless if it can be concluded that it did not influence the jury or had but slight effect. To reach this conclusion, the evidence of guilt must be so overwhelming that it renders the error insignificant by comparison such that the error could not have affected the verdict. Here, taken as a whole, the evidence of the defendant?s prurient interest in the person he was communicating with was overwhelming and, therefore, the proffered expert testimony on motive would not have influenced the jury or would have had but slight effect. Thus, any presumed error in excluding the expert testimony was harmless. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. +
+ +210568 Coxcom, LLC v. Fairfax County 07/14/2022 +Because the Internet Tax Freedom Act (?ITFA?) preempts the county?s collection of Business and Professional Occupational License (?BPOL?) taxes for the sale of internet access services, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and this action is remanded for a determination of the refund due to the taxpayer. +
+ +210509 Patterson v. City of Danville 07/07/2022 +In a medical malpractice case against a physician who treated the patient in a city?s adult detention center, the circuit court did not err in concluding that the doctor was entitled to the protection of derivative sovereign immunity as an employee and agent of the governmental body, and that the allegations of gross negligence were insufficient as a matter of law. The judgment dismissing the case on sovereign immunity grounds is affirmed. +
+ +210414 City of Charlottesville v. Regulus Books, LLC 06/09/2022 +In a challenge to assessment of taxes on an author of legal fiction works under a city?s business, professional and occupational license tax, the freelance writer?s business is not covered by the ordinance, and the circuit court?s judgment ordering the city to refund his tax payments because the ordinance is unduly vague is affirmed on the alternative ground that the ordinance does not apply to this author. The circuit court erred by awarding the writer recovery of costs not essential for the prosecution of the suit and that portion of the judgment is reversed; the case is remanded to the circuit court for deduction of such costs from its award. +
+ +210560 Marsh v. Roanoke City (ORDER) 06/09/2022 +There is no reversible error in the judgment of the circuit court dismissing a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a board of zoning appeals decision that refused to find that operation of a ?halfway house? in the petitioners? neighborhood violated the local zoning ordinance. The petition ? while making reference to ?Roanoke City? and ?City of Roanoke? ? failed to name the Roanoke City Council as a party as required by Code § 15.2-2314. Failure to name the governing body as a necessary party within the 30-day window contemplated by the statute is a defect that, when timely raised, requires dismissal of the petition. The argument that petitioners should be permitted to amend their complaint under Code § 8.01-6 is also rejected, since ?Roanoke City? is a misnomer for the City, not the Council. As the City is not the proper party to the petition, the repeated references to ?Roanoke City? amount to a misjoinder, rather than a misnomer, and accordingly Code § 8.01-6 has no application in this case. +
+ +210721 Seymour v. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 06/09/2022 +In their second amended complaint, neighboring property owners challenging a locality?s decision to grant a special use permit to a wildlife rehabilitation center, which plaintiffs alleged would cause an increase in traffic on a private easement, harming them in several ways, the allegations of the second amended complaint ? viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs ? are sufficient to establish that the appellants may have standing to challenge the special use permit at issue. The circuit court erred in sustaining demurrers and dismissing the case with prejudice for lack of standing. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. +
+ +201523 Board of Supervisors v. Route 29, LLC 06/02/2022 +In an action by the owner of rezoned property, the circuit court did not err in overruling the defendant County?s demurrer because the complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a claim that a transit proffer operated, in this instance, as an unconstitutional condition which is not enforceable. The County?s argument that voluntary conditional proffers need not bear an essential nexus, nor be roughly proportional, to the impacts of the development in question is without merit. The circuit court also did not err in denying the County?s motion to strike the evidence because evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove that the transit proffer lacked an essential nexus and was not roughly proportional to the impacts of the rezoned property project, and, therefore, should not be enforced. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. +
+ +201329 Edwards v. Omni International Services, Inc. 05/26/2022 +In a personal injury/premises liability action in which the plaintiff intended to name the owner of a defective dock at a lake resort as the defendant but named another corporation instead, the error was a misnomer subject to correction, but the four-part test under Code § 8.01-06 required for the revised pleading to relate back to the date of the filing of the original pleading was not met. The circuit court did not err in sustaining the resort owner?s plea in bar on statute of limitations grounds, or in dismissing the case with prejudice. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. +
+ +210538 Anders Larsen Trust v. Board of Supervisors 05/26/2022 +On a petition for a writ of certiorari by owners and occupants of residential properties immediately adjacent to a proposed residential treatment center for teenage girls, challenging decisions by the County?s Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals that no special use permit was required for this use of the subject property, the decision of the circuit court concluding that the neighbors lacked standing is reversed. The allegations made by the neighbors are sufficient to establish that they have immediate and substantial interests and allege burdens distinct from those suffered by the general public, and thus had standing. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. +
+ +201510 Chesapeake Hospital Authority v. State Health Commissioner 05/19/2022 +In an appeal by a hospital authority operating a regional medical center, challenging a denial by the State Health Commissioner of an application for a Certificate of Public Need to authorize a new open-heart surgery service and additional cardiac catheterization equipment, the Commissioner made an error of law in misinterpreting the regulatory term ?services? within the State Medical Facilities Plan provision at 12 VAC § 5-230-450(A)(2), and the courts below erred in applying the harmless error doctrine to an error of law in an administrative agency case under the Virginia Administrative Process Act, Code § 2.2-4000 et seq. The case is remanded for reconsideration by the Commissioner consistent with this opinion. +
+ +210260 LaRock v. City of Norfolk 05/19/2022 +In deciding a former city employee?s petition for implementation of a grievance panel?s decision to reinstate her and award backpay, the circuit court erred in refusing to implement the grievance panel?s decision. The circuit court may not substitute its view of the facts for that of the panel, consider additional facts not presented to the panel, or consider the grievance de novo. In this case, the circuit court refused to enforce the panel?s decision for an improper reason, and ? by applying the clean hands doctrine ? it invoked equitable powers where it was not entitled to do so. Here, refusal to implement the grievance panel?s decision deprived the former employee of her statutory right to a second grievance proceeding to grieve new allegations against her. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions that the circuit court enter an order which requires that the former employee be reinstated to her position and receive full backpay from the date of her termination in accordance with the panel's decision. +
+ +210489 In Re: Hon. Adrianne L. Bennett (ORDER) 04/21/2022 +In a newspaper publisher?s petition to intervene in a closed case, treated as a motion to vacate a sealing order in which this Court exercises discretion in ruling on requests to loosen or eliminate restrictions on sealed documents, and in light of the tradition of openness for court records anchored in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and in Article I, Section 12 of the Constitution of Virginia, there is a presumption that court records should be accessible to the public. Although certain records of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission are made confidential by statute, Code § 17.1 913, that statute does not apply to a mandamus proceeding filed in this Court. Here, the record warrants revisiting the order sealing the records of the mandamus proceeding and exercise of the authority to unseal this order. In addition, in the interest of openness and transparency, the remainder of the case is unsealed sua sponte, with the exception of two attachments to the petition for a writ of mandamus which remain under seal. +
+ +210382 Boyle v. Anderson 04/14/2022 +In an action charging breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee, neither the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act, Code §§ 8.01-581.01 to -.016 (?VUAA?) nor the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16 (?FAA?) compels enforcement of an arbitration clause in the trust document, which is not a contract, and a beneficiary of a trust is not a party to an agreement to arbitrate. The circuit court?s refusal to compel arbitration, appealed as in interlocutory matter pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.016, is affirmed. +
+ +210443 Erie Insurance Exchange v. Jones 04/14/2022 +In an action for declaratory relief concerning insurance coverage under a homeowner?s policy for injuries sustained by a passenger riding on the back of a small all-terrain vehicle (ATV) when she was struck by a tree branch, coverage was not available on the theory that the ATV was a ?land motor vehicle? under the policy, because that provision was limited to injuries sustained on the property of the insured. The contention that the ATV was a ?farm type vehicle? qualifying for coverage under the terms of this policy is rejected on this appeal. The ATV is a multi-purpose vehicle not designed and used primarily for farming. Final judgment is entered for the insurer. +
+ +210318 Wills v. Wills (ORDER) 04/07/2022 +In an appeal from a final order awarding a divorce to the husband and addressing matters of equitable distribution, spousal support, child custody, and child support ? in which the parties presented 18 assignments of error and cross-error, including matters relating to whether the parties' "Postnuptial Agreement," signed approximately one month after the date of the marriage, had been abrogated ? there is no reversible error in the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in Wills v. Wills, 72 Va. App. 743 (2021). With regard to the second assignment of error, the trial court?s award of prejudgment interest was based on its erroneous application of Code §§ 20-60.3(14) and -78.2, and affirmance of the Court of Appeals? decision is limited to its determination that retroactive child support is not synonymous with an ?arrearage? requiring an award of prejudgment interest under Code § 20-78.2. No position is taken regarding whether prejudgment interest could be awarded as part of a retroactive child support award under Code § 8.01-382. +
+ +201007 Sidya v. World Telecom Exchange Communications 03/24/2022 +In a suit by a telecommunications company charging misappropriation of protected trade secrets, tortious interference with business expectancy, and civil conspiracy, on this third appeal the defendant-appellant?s challenges to the trial court?s partial final judgment are rejected on the issues of sufficient evidence supporting the trade secrets, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy claims, compliance with prior remand instructions in determining compensatory damages, trebling damages under Code § 18.2-500(A), awarding supplemental attorney fees and interest thereon, and running the award of interest from the date of the jury verdict rather than the date judgment was entered on the verdict. The trial court erred in refusing to strike the evidence offered in support of this plaintiff?s claim for attorney fees incurred before and during trial, erred in awarding post-judgment interest on the punitive and treble damages, and its holdings on those issues are reversed. The trial court?s latest decision is be affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded with directions to amend the partial final judgment in accordance with this opinion. +
+ +201419 Kittrell v. Fowler (ORDER) 03/24/2022 +In a multi-party litigation involving claims of breach of fiduciary duty and other causes of actions regarding a widow?s successive interests and trust arrangements following her husband?s death, heard as an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Code § 8.01-670.1, assuming arguendo that a claim exists for the rescission of a 2006 transaction transferring the widow?s minority interest in an LLC , the claim belongs to the widow?s estate as it would have belonged to the widow during her lifetime. Upon her death in 2014, any viable claim relating to the sale of her interest in the LLC passed to her estate and may only be pursued by the estate?s personal representative, under governing case law and Code §§ 8.01-25, 64.2-519, and 64.2-520. Because neither of the present appellees is the personal representative of the widow?s estate, they lack standing to bring such a claim. The circuit court?s decision on this issue is reversed, the appellees? claims regarding the 2006 transaction are dismissed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order. +
+ +201349 California Condominium Association v. Peterson 03/17/2022 +In a condominium association?s in personam claim against the former owner of two units for unpaid special assessments, alleging breach of a provision in the condominium declaration requiring payment of all prior assessments at the time units are sold to new owners, the circuit court erred in holding that the association?s failure to introduce the declaration into evidence at an ore tenus hearing precluded it from deciding whether to grant or deny the plea in bar on this issue. The declaration, conveyance deed, and settlement statement were all made exhibits to the association?s complaint, and the former unit owner stipulated that his plea in bar assumed arguendo the factual allegations in the amended complaint. The circuit court?s holding that the declaration could not be considered is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings. +
+ +201515 Stahl v. Stitt 03/03/2022 +In an action controlled by Uniform Commercial Code provisions regarding presentation, payment or dishonor of checks in the banking industry, as enacted in the codes of both Virginia and West Virginia, the plaintiff niece ? who was a Payable on Death (POD) beneficiary of a Virginia bank account held by her aunt ? did not have a vested interest in a check drawn on the aunt?s West Virginia bank when it was initially presented for payment, and she therefore could not rely on the prompt payment of the check. Consequently, she did not have standing to enforce the midnight deadline rule under the statutes, and her eventual acquisition of the Virginia account after the aunt died failed to alter the fact that she could not rely on the prompt payment of the check when it was initially presented to the West Virginia bank. Nor could she rely on prompt payment following a second presentment of the check in light of the particular circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err when it granted the West Virginia bank?s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff niece?s motions related to the second presentment, and dismissed her amended complaint. +
+ +201413 Farah v. Commonwealth 02/17/2022 +In an appeal challenging the result of a circuit court proceeding to determine what portion of a settlement in a personal injury case is subject to the Commonwealth?s lien as a result of Medicaid program payments toward the plaintiff?s extensive medical care, it is held that Virginia?s apportionment statute does not conflict with precedent from the United States Supreme Court and, further, the factual findings of the circuit court must be sustained under the deferential standard of review. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. +
+ +201263 Virginia Department of Taxation v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco 02/10/2022 +In a taxpayer?s consolidated applications for correction of erroneous assessment of corporation income taxes for a period of years, the circuit court did not err in holding that the Department of Taxation?s corporation income tax assessments for the years in issue were erroneous and ordering the Department to refund to the taxpayer the amount of its overpayments on the assessments for those years. Leaf tobacco simply stored in a Virginia warehouse for a period of time was not ?used? in Virginia for purposes of the income apportionment formula prescribed by the taxation statutes. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. +
+ +201310 Godlove v. Rothstein 02/03/2022 +An appeal in an easement dispute has been rendered moot by sale of one of the properties involved, and the parties agree that the trial court?s judgment should be vacated. There is no longer any live controversy to be resolved, nor do the parties have any legal interest in the outcome of this appeal. When a prevailing party voluntarily and unilaterally moots a case, preventing an appellant from obtaining appellate review, vacatur of lower court judgments is generally appropriate and ensures that those who have been prevented from obtaining the review to which they are entitled are not treated as if there had been a review. Vacatur strips the decision below of its binding effect and clears the path for future relitigation. With this understanding, this appeal is dismissed as moot and the trial court?s judgment is vacated. Because this case is now moot, leaving no substantially prevailing party on appeal, the request to tax costs against the appellee is denied, and each party is ordered to pay his own respective, incurred costs. +
+ +210011 Cortez-Rivas v. Commonwealth 02/03/2022 +In a rape case where one police officer had translated during a detective?s crime-scene interrogation of the defendant, but a different officer testified at trial ? translating independently from body-camera footage of the same interview ? there was no violation of the defendant?s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. Assuming, without deciding, that statements translated from one language into another by a translator can constitute testimonial evidence, thus triggering the protections of the Confrontation Clause, those protections were satisfied here because the translator whose evidence was used at trial testified in person, subject to cross-examination. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia denying an appeal is affirmed. +
+ +200803 Smallwood v. Commonwealth 01/13/2022 +A judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the circuit court?s revocation of a defendant?s deferred disposition and convicting him for possession of heroin ? due to his failure to pay court costs as provided in a plea agreement and deferral order ? is affirmed. Statutes that permit the circuit court to impose alternatives to incarceration are highly remedial and use of these tools lies within the broad discretion of the circuit court. The plain language of Code § 18.2-251 states that, upon violation of a term or condition, the court may enter an adjudication of guilt and, in this case, it is undisputed that the payment of court costs was included as a term or condition of the deferral order. Here, the defendant?s obligation to pay court costs was an express condition of his deferred finding of guilt originated with his plea agreement. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the conviction is affirmed. +
+ +201322 Emmanuel Worship Center v. City of Petersburg 01/06/2022 +In a bill of review proceeding brought by owners of property arguably used for religious purposes to challenge a decree of sale for delinquency in tax payments, the circuit court erred when it dismissed the bill of review on the theory that the underlying action was an action at law. The circuit court further erred when it held that because more than three years had passed since these taxes were assessed, they were beyond review and that the property owners could not raise any defenses to the assessments. The judgment is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the circuit court for a determination whether the property in question was used for religious worship as defined in Code § 58.1-3606, and consequently whether any delinquent taxes were owed on the property. +
+ +210054 Robol v. Virginia State Bar 01/06/2022 +In an appeal of right from a decision of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board suspending an attorney?s his license to practice law for four years, no error is found in the Board?s decision. Upon reviewing the present case, under established legal standards, it is concluded that the Board did not err when it determined that the Virginia attorney violated Rules 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, and 8.4 of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. The plain language of these Rules establishes that associate members are attorneys who remain subject to the Bar?s jurisdiction and regulation, and the Bar acted within its authority when it pursued disciplinary action against this Virginia attorney for actions committed while he was an associate member of the Bar. +
+ +210027 Commonwealth v. Richard 12/29/2021 +In a case involving distribution of methamphetamine, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant?s proffered jury instructions regarding a ?single buyer/seller relationship? ? as an exception to potential conspiracy liability ? because there is not more than a scintilla of evidence to support the circuit court giving such instructions. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the defendant?s conviction for conspiracy. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the defendant?s conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance is reinstated. +
+ +201145 Carter v. Commonwealth 12/22/2021 +A felony conviction for assaulting a police officer is affirmed. The defendant made no verbal or non-verbal demand for the officer to leave the premises, and he was not a trespasser. The defendant resorted to violence immediately, hence her use of force against the officer to expel him was not lawful. Nor was there a Fourth Amendment violation in the officer?s completing entry into defendant?s residence to accomplish her arrest. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. +
+ +201202 Stoots v. Marion Life Saving Crew, Inc. 12/22/2021 +In a wrongful death action against paramedics and a nonprofit rescue service, the circuit court did not err in concluding that the paramedics, who did not receive compensation for their services on the day in question and were not shown to have acted in bad faith, were entitled to statutory immunity under Virginia?s Good Samaritan law, Code § 8.01-225(A)(5). Since there was no verdict holding that the paramedics were not negligent, however, the immunity of the paramedics was not a sufficient basis for finding that the rescue service itself was immune from this claim. The judgment is affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and plaintiff?s claim against the rescue service is remanded for further proceedings. +
+ +201362 Garner v. Joseph 201362 12/16/2021 +In a prior litigation to apportion the riparian rights of the owners of two adjacent shoreline lots, the holders of an easement created by deed in favor of a third, neighboring lot across one of the two properties were necessary parties, without whose participation judgment could not properly be entered. In the present action, the rulings of the circuit court on summary judgment and demurrer that the owners of the easement were not necessary parties in that prior case and lacked standing to challenge the judgment entered in the prior proceeding are reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. +
+ +201160 Ehrhardt v. SustainedMED, LLC 12/02/2021 +In an action by the purchaser of corporate shares seeking indemnification and other relief from the defendant sellers of those shares, under express provisions of a stock purchase agreement, the circuit court erred in awarding an amount of recovery for attorneys? fees and litigation costs and expenses that ? when added to other relief afforded to the plaintiffs in these proceedings ? exceeded an express cap on the maximum indemnification amount allowed under indemnification provisions of the agreement. The circuit court?s judgment regarding recovery of attorneys? fees, litigation costs, and expenses awarded to the plaintiff is reversed, and final judgment is entered on this appeal awarding the plaintiff attorneys? fees and costs in the total amount of $24,999.94, representing the maximum additional relief allowed by the parties? agreement in light of other relief awarded to the plaintiff. +
+ +201204 Commonwealth v. Cady 10/28/2021 +In prosecution for misdemeanor reckless driving in violation of Code § 46.2-852, the requisite mens rea requires a reckless disregard by the driver for the consequences of his act and an indifference to the safety of life, limb, or property of others; what distinguishes a speeding violation from misdemeanor of reckless driving, and the misdemeanor from felony of involuntary manslaughter, is the likelihood of injury to other users of the highways. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the party prevailing at trial, a rational trier of fact could reasonably infer from the evidence that this accident was not the result of a mere split-second, momentary failure to keep a lookout, an act of simple negligence ? but rather a lengthy, total, and complete failure to keep a lookout, satisfying the recklessness requirement to support a conviction for reckless driving. The Court of Appeals erroneously held as a matter of law that no rational jury could have found this defendant guilty of reckless driving. That judgment is reversed, and the trial court?s conviction order is reinstated. +
+ +200840 Phillips v. Rohrbaugh 10/21/2021 +In a daughter?s claims for both an equitable and a statutory accounting from her brother in his former capacity as an agent managing their father?s financial affairs pursuant to a power of attorney and in his present capacity as co-executor of their father?s estate, and her claim against the other co-executor of her father?s estate, seeking an equitable accounting, the circuit court did not err in granting demurrers as to all claims and dismissing the action because, under the facts pleaded, neither theory of accounting applies to this case. The judgment is affirmed. +
+ +201245 Ayers v. Brooke Road, LLC 10/21/2021 +In ruling on complaints to have several confessed judgments vacated a decade after they were entered, the circuit court erred when it sustained demurrers based on application of the provisions of Code § 8.01-433. When taken as true, the allegations of the amended complaints are sufficient to establish that the confessed judgments are void ab initio pursuant to Code § 8.01-438. Under these circumstances, the present plaintiff may challenge the validity of the confessed judgments more than 21 days after he received notice of their entry. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings. +
+ +201267 Givago Growth, LLC v. iTech AG, LLC 10/14/2021 +In a case alleging malicious abuse of process, slander of title, tortious interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy, all arising out of the filing of a notice of lis pendens for property subject to a contract for sale, the circuit court erred in sustaining demurrers based on the defense of absolute privilege. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded further proceedings consistent with this opinion. +
+ +210168 White v. United States 10/14/2021 +In response to a question of Virginia law certified from United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, accepted pursuant to Article VI, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia and Rule 5:40, it is decided that ? under Virginia common law ? an individual can be convicted of robbery by means of threatening to accuse the victim of having committed sodomy, if the accusation of sodomy involves a crime against nature under extant criminal law. Four prior opinions recognize this English common-law doctrine, and no convincing historical arguments are found demonstrating that this view was mistaken. The certified question is answered in the affirmative. +
+ +201307 Gregory v. Northam (ORDER) 09/02/2021 +There is no reversible error in the judgment of judgment of the Circuit Court concluding that the plaintiff had not articulated a legally viable cause of action in a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the Governor?s order to the Department of General Services to remove the Robert E. Lee Monument in Richmond from property owned by the Commonwealth. The plaintiff did not claim an easement appurtenant, and facts in the record do not support a finding that he has any ownership interest in any land to which any benefit conveyed by certain identified deeds would be appurtenant. Thus, he has no property right related to the Lee Monument to enforce against the Commonwealth, and he failed to articulate a legally viable cause of action. It was not error to grant the defendants? demurrer and dismiss this claim with prejudice. +
+ +210113 Taylor v. Northam 09/02/2021 +In an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Governor of Virginia, the Director of the Virginia Department of General Services, and the Director of the Virginia Division of Engineering and Building, alleging that language in an 1890 deed, signed by the then Governor of Virginia, and an 1889 joint resolution of the General Assembly which requested and authorized the Governor to sign such deed, prohibit the Governor from ordering removal of a state-owned monument from state-owned property, there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court?s ruling that certain purported restrictive covenants are unenforceable, even without considering a 2020 Budget Amendment, and the circuit court did not err in denying summary judgment to the plaintiff-appellants. There were disputed issues of fact, the resolution of which supports the circuit court?s judgment that the purported restrictive covenants are not enforceable and that the terms of the 1889 Joint Resolution are not binding on the current Governor and did not strip him of authority to order the removal of the Lee Monument from the Circle in Richmond. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. +
+ +200791 City of Charlottesville v. Sclafani 08/26/2021 +In an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming an award of workers? compensation benefits, the law-of-the-case doctrine did not bar the City?s arguments, which are here considered. While the rationale of the Court of Appeals is rejected, the evidence supports the Commission?s award of benefits and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. +
+ +191545 Lopez v. Intercept Youth Services, Inc. 08/05/2021 +The circuit court granted a plea in bar and dismissed a complaint alleging that an employer operating a residential program for at-risk youth had negligently failed to protect an employee who was murdered by one of the residents. Evidence presented at a plea-in-bar hearing, describing the specific circumstances of a fatal assault, coupled with allegations in the complaint, demonstrate that the probability of assault was augmented either because of the particular character of the victim?s job or because of the special liability to assault associated with the environment in which the victim was required to work. The circuit court correctly held that the victim?s murder had arisen out of the conditions of her employment. Because the exclusivity provision of the Virginia Workers? Compensation Act applies, the circuit court?s judgment sustaining the plea in bar and dismissing the tort action is affirmed. +
+ +200990 Barnes v. Berry (ORDER) 08/05/2021 +In a case brought by the putative father of a newborn child, the circuit court erred in granting a plea in bar on the basis that he had no standing to appeal a legal decision made by the juvenile and domestic relations district court regarding the child. The plaintiff timely registered with the Virginia Birth Father Registry and is thereby entitled to notice and participation in adoption proceedings regarding the child. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in Berry v. Barnes, 72 Va. App. 281, 295 (2020). +
+ +201118 Eubank v. Thomas 08/05/2021 +In an action pleading claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process against a county administrator and two employees of the county?s planning and zoning department, the plaintiffs? complaint is not a delayed challenge to zoning actions, thus the ?thing decided? doctrine is not applicable. The circuit court erred in granting a demurrer and dismissing the malicious prosecution claim because the complaint adequately pled that claim, but its dismissal of the abuse of process claim is affirmed. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. +
+ +191716 Potter v. BFK, Inc. 07/22/2021 +In a wrongful death action, the circuit court erred in sustaining a plea in bar of the statute of limitations filed by the manufacturer of stone processing equipment involved in the death. When all of the relevant factors are considered, it is apparent that the device at issue in this case is equipment within the meaning of Code § 8.01-250 ? it is used for a specific purpose unrelated to the structural integrity of the construction of the building itself, and has several qualities characteristic of equipment: the manufacturer exerts some degree of control over its installation and maintenance, it is not required for the operation of the building, and it is neither fungible nor generic. Thus, the circuit court erred in sustaining the manufacturer?s plea in bar based on its conclusion that the device qualified as ordinary building materials. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. +
+ +200703 Kinsey v. VEPCO 07/15/2021 +In actions by two plaintiffs alleging injuries caused by radio frequency (?RF?) emissions from an electric utility?s ?smart meter? attached to their house, the complaints do not specify any particular error in the installation, operation, or maintenance of the meters, but instead are directed at the RF emissions of the smart meters which allegedly caused their illnesses. Although a savings clause in federal law preserves state law tort claims, conflict preemption bars the plaintiffs' claims because the complaints target RF emissions, which are governed by the FCC. The plaintiffs? attempt to recast their complaints as negligence and fraud actions flowing from the malfunction of a specific meter at their home is rejected; they did not allege that the smart meters were the instrumentality of harm in their fraud and negligence counts in their complaints, and the complaints broadly challenge the RF emissions of the meters. The judgment of the circuit court dismissing the actions is affirmed. +
+ +201108 Evans v. Evans 07/15/2021 +In a divorce proceeding wherein the plaintiff wife obtained an order of publication against her husband, leading to entry of a decree of divorce that incorporated the terms of a property settlement and support agreement between the parties, the divorce court lacked personal jurisdiction over the husband when the divorce decree was entered, and thus did not have the authority to enter an in personam award of child support. In the present proceeding, the judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding a ruling of a circuit court, vacating as void ab initio that portion of the earlier divorce decree that had ordered the husband to pay child support, is affirmed. +
+ +201172 VEPCO v. SCC 07/15/2021 +In an appeal by an electric utility from a declaratory judgment of the State Corporation Commission concluding that a pumped storage hydroelectric facility (or ?pumped storage?) generates ?renewable energy? under the former definition in Code § 56-576, and that the amended definition (now excluding pumped storage from that definition) would not apply to contracts executed before the amendment?s effective date, the Commission?s decision is affirmed. +
+ +200748 Pena Pinedo v. Commonwealth 07/08/2021 +In the context of robbery, a good faith or bona fide claim of right to the property taken negates the mens rea element of the offense, but the claim-of-right defense requires a predicate showing of good faith, or a bona fide belief by the taking party that he has some legal right to the property taken. In the present case, the evidence plainly established that the stolen money was ?drug money,? earned through illegal drug transactions, and the record does not contain more than a scintilla of evidence to establish that the defendant had a good faith or bona fide claim of right to the stolen money. While he may have subjectively believed that the victim and his girlfriend stole the money from defendant?s drug dealing partner, defendant was never legally entitled to possess the money at issue, which was itself a form of contraband, and he could not have possessed the money in good faith. The claim-of-right defense does not apply under these circumstances. The Court of Appeals correctly determined that an individual cannot have a good faith or bona fide claim of right regarding contraband, money earned from the sale of contraband, or other fruits of a crime. The judgment is affirmed. +
+ +200823 Dill v. Kroger Limited Partnership I 07/08/2021 +In a malicious prosecution and false imprisonment case brought by a person who was mistakenly identified, charged, and prosecuted as a shoplifter, the circuit court erred in granting a joint motion to strike filed by the defendant retailer and its store manager as to the malicious prosecution claim, but it did not err in granting the motion as to the false imprisonment claim. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. +
+ +200336 Lucas v. Riverhill Poultry, Inc. 07/01/2021 +In a wrongful death action arising from an unexplained single-vehicle accident in which both occupants perished, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding portions of the medical examiner?s autopsy report and the plaintiff?s experts? opinions regarding the identity of the driver and the individual defendant?s alleged sleep disorder, or in refusing the plaintiff?s proffered jury instruction on falling asleep at the wheel. The judgment for the defendants entered in the circuit court is affirmed. +
+ + +@@ -108,11 +453,25 @@
Supreme Court of Virginia Opinions
Forms | Judicial Branch Agencies | Programs -