Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs applied for a special use permit requesting a permit to operate a boarding kennel in accordance with Clark County Zoning Ordinances. Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant, a nearby neighbor and member of the Clarke County Planning Commission, alleging defamation and tortious interference with a contract. Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant sent defamatory emails and made false public statements defaming Plaintiffs. The circuit court sustained Defendant’s demurrer on all counts, concluding that the statements were not defamatory and were protective by legislative immunity and that the allegations did not set forth a claim for tortious interference. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) none of the disputed statements by Defendant were sufficiently defamatory in nature to survive demurrer; and (2) the allegations failed to state a claim for tortious interference with contract. View "Schaecher v. Bouffault" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff was fired, his former supervisor swore out a misdemeanor assault and battery complaint against Plaintiff for events that allegedly occurred immediately after Plaintiff’s termination. The supervisor also told other employees at Plaintiff’s former workplace that Plaintiff had cut or stabbed him. The misdemeanor assault and battery charge was later dismissed. Plaintiff filed a complaint against his former supervisor and his former employer (collectively, Defendants) alleging malicious prosecution and defamation. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff was awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court erred when it excluded evidence of Plaintiff’s work history and quality of past job performance, as the excluded evidence was probative of future lost income, and the error was not harmless; and (2) the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to subject Plaintiff’s former employer to punitive damages liability. Remanded. View "Egan v. Butler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff owned property located in the City of Norfolk. Gary and Margaret Cordovana owned the property located on one side of Plaintiff’s property, and 1273 West Ocean View, LLC and Dion Hayle (collectively, “1273 WOV”) owned the property on the other side of Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff sued the Cordovanas and 1273 WOV alleging that Defendants were directing large quantities of water run-off and pollutants from their properties onto Plaintiff’s property. The trial court sustained Defendants’ demurrers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege a valid cause of action for trespass, nuisance, negligence, and negligence per se. View "Collett v. Cordovana" on Justia Law

A seven-year-old first grade student died at school as a result of a severe allergic reaction to a peanut provided to her by a classmate. The tragic death of the child received widespread publicity in local, national, and international news reports that contained many statements and comments made by Defendants, several school and county health department officials. Plaintiff, the student’s mother, brought this action claiming that Defendants’ statements were maliciously designed to divert public indignation from the failures of Defendants to exercise proper care for the child by falsely implying and insinuating that Plaintiff bore responsibility for the death of her child. The circuit court sustained Defendants’ demurrer and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that complaint set forth facts that, if taken as true, were sufficient to support a cause of action for defamation. View "Pendleton v. Newsome" on Justia Law

Julia Cain and her daughters Raven and Reannah Cain filed a personal injury complaint against Defendant, who rear-ended them while they were driving. After a trial, the jury awarded $5,000 in compensatory damages to Raven, $5,000 in compensatory damages to Reannah, $2,000 in compensatory damages to Julia, and $500 in punitive damages to each plaintiff. The Cains appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of Defendant’s post-accident conduct; but (2) the trial court erred in giving an instruction addressing the disfavored nature of punitive damages, and the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "Cain v. Lee" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for damages arising from a vehicle accident. Defendant admitted liability, and the case was tried before a jury on the issue of damages. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $9,000. The circuit court granted Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for additur for a total award of $197,513. Upon Defendant’s election declining to accept the additur award, the circuit court awarded Plaintiff a new trial. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in setting aside the jury verdict and awarding additur. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the jury verdict in the amount of $9,000, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court should not have set aside the first verdict. View "Cosby v. Clem" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant were involved in an automobile accident in which the vehicles being operated by each of them collided. Plaintiff filed suit and attempted to serve the complaint and summons on Defendant at a prior address despite having knowledge of Defendant’s correct address. Plaintiff subsequently used Defendant’s proper address for service of additional pleadings but did not serve the complaint and summons at his current address. Plaintiff later obtained a default judgment awarding the full amount of damages she claimed. Thereafter, Plaintiff moved to set aside the default judgment, averring that there existed some question regarding whether Defendant was validly served with process. The circuit court denied Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the decision whether to grant Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the default judgment was within the circuit court’s discretion; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment. View "Sauder v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, Inc. filed a defamation action against three John Doe defendants alleging that they falsely represented themselves as Hadeed customers and posted negative reviews about Hadeed’s services on Yelp, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. Hadeed issued a subpoena duces tecum to Yelp seeking documents located in California revealing the identity and other information about the reviews’ authors. The circuit court entered an order enforcing the subpoena duces tecum and holding Yelp in civil contempt when it refused to comply. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that service of the subpoena on Yelp’s registered agent in Virginia provided the circuit court with jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena duces tecum. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals and the contempt order of the circuit court, holding that the circuit court was not empowered to enforce the subpoena duces tecum against Yelp, as subpoena power was not conferred upon the circuit court by Yelp’s act in registering to conduct business in Virginia or designating a registered agent for service of process in Virginia. View "Yelp, Inc. v. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning" on Justia Law

EE Mart, LLC brought an action in a Virginia circuit court against Suzanne Delyon, the former chief financial officer of EE Mart, and the other LLCs that she owned, alleging claims relating to insurance proceeds paid to Delyon by Traveler’s Insurance Company (Traveler’s). After it nonsuited the case, EE Mart brought an action against Traveler’s, Delyon, and the other LLCs in a Maryland circuit court relating to Traveler’s payment of the insurance proceeds to Delyon. Delyon and the other LLCs then filed the present action in a Virginia circuit court seeking to enjoin EE Mart from proceeding with the Maryland action and seeking a declaratory judgment that the Maryland action was without merit. EE Mart counterclaimed, asserting the same claims it had pled in the original action. The trial court dismissed EE Mart’s counterclaim with prejudice, finding it was frivolous. Delyon and the other LLCs then sought sanctions against EE Mart, claiming that the original action, Maryland action, and the counterclaim to the present action were frivolous. The trial court granted the motion and awarded attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed with regard to the amount of sanctions awarded, holding that the trial court erred in its calculation of the attorney’s fees it could award as a sanction. View "EE Mart F.C., LLC v. Delyon" on Justia Law

Debara Brown filed a complaint as executor of the estate of her husband (the decedent), a private investigator, against Ali Al-Ibrahim Abid, alleging that Abid killed the decedent while he was attempting to serve divorce papers on Abid. Brown was granted leave to file an amended complaint to add a wrongful death claim against Sherwin Jacobs, the attorney who hired the decedent to serve Abid, claiming that Jacobs was negligent because he did not warn Abid of the risks of personally serving Abid. The circuit court ultimately dismissed the case against Jacobs with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in sustaining Jacobs’ demurrer to Brown’s amended complaint because Brown failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that a special relationship existed between Jacobs and the decedent imposing a duty upon Jacobs to warn the decedent of potential danger from criminal assault by a third party. View "Brown v. Jacobs" on Justia Law