Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The American Tradition Institute and Robert Marshall (collectively, “ATI”) sent a request to the University of Virginia (“UVA”), seeking all documents that Dr. Michael Mann, a climate scientist and former professor, had produced and/or received while working for UVA. When ATI failed to receive the documents, it filed a petition for mandamus and injunctive relief in the trial court. The trial court conducted an in camera review of some of the documents UVA designated as exempt from disclosure, and subsequently entered an order finding UVA carried its burden of proof that the records withheld under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act met each of the requirements for exclusion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by denying the request for disclosure of the documents at issue; and (2) the trial court did not err in allowing UVA to demand a reasonable fee for the cost of reviewing the documents sought under the statutory exclusions. View "American Tradition Inst. v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va." on Justia Law

Defendant, a teacher at a vocational school who also supervised students on the sidewalk outside his classroom, was indicted on three counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor by a person in a custodial or supervisory relationship. A jury convicted Defendant on all three counts. At issue on appeal was whether the evidence showed Defendant had a custodial or supervisory relationship over A.G., a student at the school, who was not one of Defendant’s students but whom Defendant saw every day when he monitored the sidewalk. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the proscribed acts occurred while Defendant maintained a custodial or supervisory relationship with A.G. View "Linnon v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to carnal knowledge of a minor. At the time of his conviction, Defendant's crime was classified as a non-violent sex offense. Defendant was required to register annually for ten years, after which he could petition for expungement. The federal government subsequently enacted the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which resulted in Defendant's conviction being retroactively reclassified as a sexually violent offense. Consequently, Defendant was required to register every ninety days for the rest of his life with no right to petition for expungement. Defendant filed a complaint asserting that the reclassification of his offense violated his contractual and constitutional rights. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Commonwealth. Smith appealed, arguing that his plea agreement was a contract that incorporated the sex offender registration laws in existence at the time of the agreement, and thus, the Commonwealth materially breached the plea agreement by amending the registration laws and retroactively enforcing them against him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there were no contractual or constitutional violations resulting from the reclassification of Defendant's conviction, and therefore, the circuit court properly dismissed Defendant's petition for expungement and for a permanent injunction.View "Smith v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was hired by New Dimensions, Inc. (NDI) as a design and sales consultant. Plaintiff was paid a commission of 2.12 percent of her total sales, but other design and sales consultants, both male and female, previously hired by NDI were paid commissions of 2.25 percent. Plaintiff was subsequently terminated by NDI and was not paid commissions for certain sales she had secured. Plaintiff filed this amended complaint against NDI alleging breach of contract, quantum meruit, and violation of the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA). In its answer, NDI did not affirmatively plead the four defenses articulated in the statute. The circuit court determined that NDI was prohibited from presenting evidence in defense of the EPA claim and precluded the introduction of evidence related to those defenses. The circuit court ruled in favor of Plaintiff on the EPA claim. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the defenses set forth in the EPA are affirmative but were not waived under the facts presented in this case; and (2) therefore, the circuit court erred in preventing NDI from presenting evidence of its gender-neutral compensation system at trial. Remanded.View "New Dimensions, Inc. v. Tarquini" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of animate object sexual penetration. Prior to his sentencing, Defendant hired a new attorney, who discovered that the Commonwealth had made a plea offer prior to trial. The circuit court found that the plea offer was not conveyed to Defendant, declared a mistrial, and ordered a new trial. Defendant subsequently entered a plea of no contest, which the circuit court accepted. The court then sentenced Defendant to thirty years' imprisonment. Thereafter, Defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for his first attorney's failure to communicate to him the plea offer from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth dismissed the petition, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over Defendant's claim because Defendant was not being detained as a result of his first trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, holding that, assuming that Defendant may link the first and second trials and assert ineffective assistance of counsel, Defendant could not prove he was prejudiced by counsel's performance pursuant to Missouri v. Frye, which provides the standard for proving prejudice in the plea context. View "Laster v. Russell" on Justia Law

The Caroline County Board of Supervisors issued a special exception permit that approved the use of land adjacent to the Rappahannock River for a sand and gravel mining operation. Complainants, the Friends of the Rappahannock and several local landowners and one lessee, challenged the issuance of the permit by filing this declaratory judgment action. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, finding that Complainants lacked standing to bring the suit because the claims alleged were not supported by sufficient facts and because the allegations did not show a loss of a personal or property right different from that "suffered by the public generally." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not erroneously apply the aggrieved party standard in determining standing in this case; and (2) based on the insufficiency of allegations in their complaint, the individual complainants did not have standing to proceed.View "Friends of the Rappahannock v. Caroline County Bd. of Supervisors" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a Project that provided for the design and construction of a new Midtown Tunnel. The Commonwealth Transportation Board affirmed the Project and specifically approved and ratified the imposition and collection of tolls on the Project as contemplated by a Comprehensive Agreement entered into by Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Elizabeth River Crossings OpCo, LLC (ERC). Plaintiff and other individuals filed a complaint against ERC and VDOT, alleging, inter alia, that the General Assembly, through its enactment of the Public-Private Transportation Act (PPTA), unconstitutionally delegated its power of taxation to VDOT and ERC in violation of the Virginia Constitution. The circuit court concluded that the General Assembly exceeded its authority in this case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Project tolls were user fees and not taxes, and therefore, the General Assembly did not delegate its power of taxation to agencies such as VDOT in violation of the Virginia Constitution; (2) the General Assembly properly delegated to VDOT and ERC the legislative power to impose and set the rates of user fees in the form of tolls under the terms of the PPTA; and (3) the Comprehensive Agreement did not abridge the Commonwealth's police power. View "Elizabeth River Crossings OpCo, LLC v. Meeks" on Justia Law

George Huguely was convicted in 2012 of murdering his former girlfriend. Huguely's trial received extensive publicity. Virginia Broadcasting Corporation (VBC), the owner of a television station, filed a request to have a camera in the courtroom to broadcast Huguely's sentencing hearing. After a hearing, the trial court denied VBC's request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err (1) by failing to apply a "good cause shown" standard in its initial determination whether to permit coverage of Huguely's sentencing hearing; and (2) in holding that VBC's newsgathering and reporting activities via electronic media were entitled to no protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or the Virginia Constitution. View "Virginia Broad. Corp. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In 1989, Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual battery and attempting to commit forcible sodomy. In 2005, Appellant was found not to be a sexually violent predator pursuant to the Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act. In 2008, Appellant was found guilty of violating his parole and was reincarcerated for his 1989 sexual offenses. Prior to his release from incarceration, the Commonwealth filed a second petition in 2011 to civilly commit Appellant as a sexually violent predator. Appellant moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that it was barred by res judicata. The circuit court denied the motion. The court subsequently found Appellant was a sexually violent predator and ordered him committed. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Appellant's motion to dismiss, holding that the application of res judicata was inappropriate in this case where the 2011 petition was not dependent upon the same evidence as the 2005 proceeding, nor did the 2011 petition arise from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence. View "Rhoten v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After the mass shooting at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 2007, the administrators of the estates of two of the victims of the shooting filed wrongful death suits against the Commonwealth, claiming that the Commonwealth was liable for the actions of the Commonwealth's employees at the university pursuant to the Virginia Tort Claims Act. Specifically, the administrators claimed that a special relationship existed between the Commonwealth's employees at the university and the victims that gave rise to the Commonwealth's duty to warn the victims of third party criminal acts. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Administrators. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, without deciding that a special relationship existed between the Commonwealth and the university students, no duty to warn students of harm by a third party criminal arose under the circumstances of this case. View "Commonwealth v. Peterson" on Justia Law