Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was the extent to which a corporate taxpayer must include in its Virginia taxable income royalties paid to an intangible holding company. The Virginia Supreme Court held that the circuit court correctly determined that only the portion of the royalties that was actually taxed by another state falls within the subject-to-tax exception. However, the circuit court erred by failing to hold, in accordance with Kohl's alternative argument, that Kohl's Illinois need not be the entity that pays this tax for the exception to apply. Accordingly, the court reversed the circuit court's judgment and remanded for a determination of what portion of the royalty payments was actually taxed by another state and thus excepted from the add back statute. View "Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. v. Virginia Department of Taxation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying Appellant’s petition to expunge a felony arrest record, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the petition.The trial court declined the expunge the record on the basis that the existence of this record did not and may not cause Appellant a manifest injustice. The Supreme Court held (1) Appellant was eligible to seek expungement of the record at issue; and (2) Appellant’s unrebutted evidence established that the continued existence and possible dissemination of her arrest record could constitute a manifest injustice. View "A.R.A. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying Appellant’s petition to expunge a felony arrest record, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the petition.The trial court declined the expunge the record on the basis that the existence of this record did not and may not cause Appellant a manifest injustice. The Supreme Court held (1) Appellant was eligible to seek expungement of the record at issue; and (2) Appellant’s unrebutted evidence established that the continued existence and possible dissemination of her arrest record could constitute a manifest injustice. View "A.R.A. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing a petition to remove an elected officer, holding that the petition failed to comply with the requirement set forth in Va. Code 24.2-233 and -235 that the signatures of petitioners who are registered voters equal to ten percent of the votes case in the last election be made under penalty of perjury.The circuit court dismissed the petition at issue on the grounds that the petition was not signed under penalty of perjury by a number of registered voters equal to ten percent of the votes cast in the prior election for that office. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, reading sections 24.2-233 and -235 together, the text of the statutes requires that the signatures of ten percent of the registered voters on a petition for the removal of an elected officer must be signed under penalty of perjury. View "Commonwealth v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing a petition to remove an elected officer, holding that the petition failed to comply with the requirement set forth in Va. Code 24.2-233 and -235 that the signatures of petitioners who are registered voters equal to ten percent of the votes case in the last election be made under penalty of perjury.The circuit court dismissed the petition at issue on the grounds that the petition was not signed under penalty of perjury by a number of registered voters equal to ten percent of the votes cast in the prior election for that office. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, reading sections 24.2-233 and -235 together, the text of the statutes requires that the signatures of ten percent of the registered voters on a petition for the removal of an elected officer must be signed under penalty of perjury. View "Commonwealth v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for displaying a noose on a public place with the intent to intimidate and placing others in reasonable fear of death or personal injury, in violation of Va. Code 18.2-423.2, holding that, although the noose was located on Defendant’s own property, the noose display was on a public place under this court’s construction of the statute.Affirming Defendant’s conviction, the court of appeals rejected Defendant’s contention that privately owned property cannot constitute a public place for purposes of section 18.2-423.2(B) and that Defendant's noose display was therefore outside ether scope of this provision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the obvious and rational meaning of the term “public place” as used in the statute includes private property generally visible by the public from some other location, which was the case with the site of Defendant’s noose display in his front yard. View "Turner v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for displaying a noose on a public place with the intent to intimidate and placing others in reasonable fear of death or personal injury, in violation of Va. Code 18.2-423.2, holding that, although the noose was located on Defendant’s own property, the noose display was on a public place under this court’s construction of the statute.Affirming Defendant’s conviction, the court of appeals rejected Defendant’s contention that privately owned property cannot constitute a public place for purposes of section 18.2-423.2(B) and that Defendant's noose display was therefore outside ether scope of this provision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the obvious and rational meaning of the term “public place” as used in the statute includes private property generally visible by the public from some other location, which was the case with the site of Defendant’s noose display in his front yard. View "Turner v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

This case provided the Supreme Court an opportunity to provide guidance on what happens if one of multiple losing parties wishes to appeal from a general district court (GDC) judgment involving consolidated claims by several parties.The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s award of sanctions against Landlord and award of damages in favor of Tenants in this dispute over holdover rent and property damages. Landlord filed a warrant in debt against Tenants. Tenants filed a counterclaim. The GDC ruled against both parties and dismissed all claims. Landlord appealed to the circuit court but later withdrew its appeal. The circuit court awarded sanctions against Landlord and awarded damages in favor of Tenants on their unappealed counterclaim without hearing evidence on the matter. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court abused its discretion by applying a rationale for a sanctions award that finds no support in either the text of Va. Code 8.01-271.1 or this court’s opinions applying it; and (2) the circuit court erred in adjudicating Tenants’ counterclaim. View "Robert & Bertha Robinson Family, LLC v. Allen" on Justia Law

This case provided the Supreme Court an opportunity to provide guidance on what happens if one of multiple losing parties wishes to appeal from a general district court (GDC) judgment involving consolidated claims by several parties.The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s award of sanctions against Landlord and award of damages in favor of Tenants in this dispute over holdover rent and property damages. Landlord filed a warrant in debt against Tenants. Tenants filed a counterclaim. The GDC ruled against both parties and dismissed all claims. Landlord appealed to the circuit court but later withdrew its appeal. The circuit court awarded sanctions against Landlord and awarded damages in favor of Tenants on their unappealed counterclaim without hearing evidence on the matter. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court abused its discretion by applying a rationale for a sanctions award that finds no support in either the text of Va. Code 8.01-271.1 or this court’s opinions applying it; and (2) the circuit court erred in adjudicating Tenants’ counterclaim. View "Robert & Bertha Robinson Family, LLC v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Roy L. Watford’s petition for a writ of actual innocence based on biological evidence and vacated his conviction, holding that Watford proved, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the allegations required under Va. Code 19.2-327.3(A) and that no rational trier of fact would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.In 1978, Watford pled guilty to rape and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, entirely suspended for a period of ten years. In 2010, several pieces of evidence in this case were subjected to DNA testing. In 2016, a buccal swab was obtained from Watford. Watford subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of actual innocence based on biological evidence pursuant to Va. Code 19.2-327.2 et seq. The circuit court returned its findings of fact to the Supreme Court following an evidentiary hearing, After considering Watford’s petition, the response of the Commonwealth, the records of the case, the DNA evidence and the circuit court’s findings of fact, the Supreme Court vacated Watford’s conviction, finding that it was highly unlikely that any rational fact-finder would have found Watford guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. View "In re Watford" on Justia Law