Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and reinstated that conviction, holding that the court of appeals erred in reversing Defendant's conviction for conspiracy.In reversing Defendant's conviction, the court of appeals ruled that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying two proffered jury instructions regarding the single-buyer/seller relationship exception to conspiracy liability. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the proffered jury instructions concerning a single-buyer/seller relationship. View "Commonwealth v. Richard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the circuit court ruling that Marion Life Saving Crew, Inc. (MLSC) and its paramedics were entitled to statutory immunity pursuant to Va. Code 8.01-255(A)(5), holding that the circuit court erred in ruling that MLSC was immune from liability.Plaintiff, the administrator of the Estate of Calvin Harmon Shoots, brought this wrongful death complaint alleging that Defendants' grossly negligent conduct was the direct and proximate cause of the premature death of Shoots. The circuit court ruled (1) the paramedics were clearly negligent but that they were absolutely immune from liability under section 8.01-225(A)(5); and (2) MLSC was immune because the paramedics were immune from liability. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court correctly ruled that the paramedics were immune from liability; but (2) the paramedics' immunity from civil liability was not dispositive of whether section 8.01-225 applied to MLSC, and therefore, the circuit court erred in ruling that MLSC was immune because the paramedics were also immune. View "Stoots v. Marion Life Saving Crew, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of battering a police officer under Va. Code 18.2-57(C), holding that Defendant's contentions on appeal were without merit.Defendant was charged with assault and battery on a police officer, a felony. At trial, Defendant argued that she had used force to expel a trespasser, and therefore, her use of force was not unlawful. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the convictions was supported by sufficient evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that Defendant's use of force was not justified by the law of trespass. View "Carter v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court holding that the owners of an easement were not indispensable parties to a boundary adjustment suit filed by their neighbors, holding that, under the facts and circumstances, the holders of the easement were necessary parties.The neighbors in this case were Thomas and Christine Garner, Ellen Edwards, and Vincent and Theresa Joseph. In 2015, a court concluded that the Garners had the riparian right to construct a pier on the easement that they held. Thereafter, the Josephs filed a complaint against Edwards seeking to establish the riparian boundaries between their respective properties. Following an apportionment proceeding, the Josephs demanded that the Garners cease using their illegal pier construction and applicable riparian waters. The Garners asserted that because they hadn't been joined as necessary parties in the apportionment proceeding, depriving them of their opportunity to defend their interests. The Josephs responded that the Garners lacked standing to challenge the riparian lines and had not, therefore, been necessary parties. The circuit court concluded that the Garners were not necessary parties and therefore lacked standing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Garners were necessary parties to the boundary adjustment suit. View "Garner v. Joseph" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the circuit court erred in this case in awarding SustainedMED, LLC attorneys' fees as well as expenses and costs in excess of $24,999.94 on its indemnification claim because the award exceeded the maximum indemnification amount allowed under an indemnity agreement.Sellers entered into a stock purchase agreement (SPA) for the sale of their collective shares in Cyfluent, Inc. to SustainedMED. The total purchase price for the sale of the Cyfluent stock was $4,900,000. The SPA included an indemnity agreement requiring Sellers to indemnify Sustained MED for losses resulting from inaccuracies in or breach of any representations or warranties made by Sellers. SustainedMED filed suit against Sellers alleging misrepresentations and fraud in the inducement. The circuit court ruled in favor of SustainedMED and awarded SustainedMED $972,323.50 in attorneys' fees and $64,225 in litigation expenses and costs. The Supreme Court reversed as to the award of attorneys' fees and costs, holding that the circuit court erred in awarding attorneys' fees and costs in excess of $24,999.94 on SustainedMED's indemnification claim because of the SPA's indemnification cap of $4,900,000. View "Ehrhardt v. SustainedMED, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing a misdemeanor conviction based upon a jury verdict finding Defendant guilty of reckless driving, holding that the court of appeals erroneously held as a matter of law that no rational jury could have found Defendant guilty of reckless driving.The Commonwealth alleged that Defendant, while driving along a two-lane road, abandoned his duty to keep a proper lookout for a substantial period of time and recklessly struck and killed a motorcyclist who had stopped to make a left turn. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court's conviction order, holding that, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence supported the jury's verdict. View "Commonwealth v. Cady" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court sustaining Brooke Road, LLC's demurrers to Troy Ayers' complaints to vacate several confessed judgments, holding that the circuit court erred.In his second amended complaint, Ayers alleged that he was never served with certified copies of the confessed judgments, and therefore, the confessed judgments were void ab initial under the terms of Va. Code 8.01-438. Brooke Road filed a demurrer, arguing that the deadline set forth in Va. Code 8.01-433 barred Ayers' claims. The circuit court sustained Brooke Road's demurrer based on the application of section 8.01-433. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in sustaining Brooke Road's demurrers based on the application of the provisions of section 8.01-433. View "Ayers v. Brooke Road, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting demurrers as to all claims filed by John Mark Rohrbaugh Sr.'s daughter seeking 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 (POA) and in his current capacity as co-executor of their father's estate, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff brought this complaint against John Mark Rohrbaugh Jr. in both his individual capacity and in his capacity as a co-executor of the Rohrbaugh Sr. estate requesting a statutory accounting from Rohrbaugh Jr. concerning his actions pursuant to his father's POA and requesting an equitable accounting. The circuit court granted the demurrers to the complaint and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err when it dismissed on demurrer Plaintiff's equitable and statutory accounting claims. View "Phillips v. Rohrbaugh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question regarding whether, under Virginia common law, an individual can be convicted of robbery by means of threatening to accuse the victim of having committed sodomy, in the positive and that the accusation of "sodomy" involves a crime against nature under extant criminal law.In a federal district court, Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant objected to the United States' request that he receive an enhanced sentence based on his prior convictions for three predicate violent felonies, including a Virginia robbery conviction, arguing that under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), a felony is defined as a violent felony only if it categorically requires a physical force element and that the physical force element is not always required to prove robbery in Virginia. The Supreme Court agreed, held that Virginia's longstanding common-law robbery doctrine, which recognizes that threatening to accuse someone of committing a crime against nature can be constructive violence, remains the law of the Commonwealth. View "White v. United States" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Petitioners' amended complaint against iTech AG, LLC and Robbins Law Group, PLLC (collectively, Appellees) alleging malicious abuse of process, slander of title, tortious interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy arising out of the filing of a lis pendens, holding that the circuit court erred in sustaining Appellees' demurrers.In their demurrers to Petitioners' complaint, Appellees argued that the filing of a lis pendens is entitle to absolute privilege and that the complaint dd not plead valid claims for slander of title, tortious interference with contractual relations, or civil conspiracy. The circuit court sustained the demurrers on the basis that the information contained in a memorandum of lis pendens is subject to absolute privilege. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the information contained in the lis pendens was not sufficiently "relevant and pertinent to the matter under inquiry" for absolute privilege to apply in this case. View "Givago Growth, LLC v. iTech AG, LLC" on Justia Law