Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Frances Robinson was fired from her employment with the Salvation Army, she filed a wrongful termination suit alleging that she was terminated for refusing requests from her store manager to engage in fornication. Robbins claimed common law wrongful termination for refusing to commit fornication and contended that the fornication statute, Va. Code Ann. 18.2-344, remained viable as a basis for her common law wrongful termination claim despite the ruling in Martin v. Ziherl that the statute was unconstitutional. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Salvation Army. Robinson appealed, asking the Supreme Court to find that section 18.2-344 provides the basis for a valid public policy ground to support her Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville claim for wrongful termination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 18.2-344 does not support a public policy Bowman claim for wrongful termination in this case; and (2) the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for the Salvation Army. View "Robinson v. Salvation Army" on Justia Law

PS Business Parks, LP obtained a judgment against Deutsch & Gilden, Inc. PS Business filed a garnishment summons naming Deutsch & Gilden, Inc. as the judgment debtor and SunTrust Bank as the garnishee. SunTrust processed a legal order debit against an account titled to Deutsch ending in 95497 and filed a check drawn from an account ending in 61663. The circuit court quashed the garnishment of account 61663 and ordered payment to PS Business of $15,050, the amount of the check drawn on account 95497. The Supreme Court reversed the order of payment from account 95497, finding that SunTrust’s indebtedness to Deutch exceeded $15,050. On remand, the circuit court found that Deutsch was indebted to PS Business in the amount of $706,755, and that SunTrust was indebted to Deutsch in the amount of $1.2 million. SunTrust appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by placing the burden of proof on SunTrust, the garnishee, instead of on PS Business, the judgment creditor. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) during the garnishment proceeding, the circuit court improperly shifted the burden of persuasion to SunTrust; and (2) the circuit court’s finding that SunTrust was indebted to Deutsch in the sum of $1.2 million during the garnishment period was plainly wrong. View "SunTrust Bank v. PS Business Parks, LP" on Justia Law

Ravi Prasad purchased a lot at a tax sale. Shorty thereafter, Appellee mistakenly began renovating a house on a nearby lot owned by William and Elnora Washington, spending more than $23,500 on the renovations. When the Washingtons refused to pay Appellee for the work he procured for their house, Prasad filed a complaint asking the circuit court to impose a constructive trust on the Washingtons’ lot. Specifically, Prasad alleged that the Washingtons had been unjustly enriched as a result of fraud perpetrated by them through misrepresenting the address of the house. The circuit court entered a decision in favor of Prasad and imposed a constructive trust on the Washingtons’ lot in favor of Prasad with a money judgment in the amount he expended on the house. The Supreme Court reversed and entered final judgment for the Washingtons, holding that under long-standing common law principles regarding notice imputed to purchasers of real property, because it was Prasad’s failure to exercise due diligence in his purchase of his lot that resulted in his misidentification of the Washingtons’ parcel as the property he was purchasing, Prasad was not entitled to recover compensation for the permanent improvements he made on the premises. View "Washington v. Prasad" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a contract dispute between the purchaser (Purchaser) and the seller (Seller) of a corporation pursuant to a corporative merger agreement. The agreement provided for three different liability limitations (damage caps) in the event of Seller’s breaches. Seller breached several requirements of the agreement by failing to use certain accounting principles to accurately establish the financial condition of Seller’s corporation and, accordingly, the appropriate adjustment to the consideration to be paid by Purchaser. The amount of the adjustment was controlled by the indemnity Purchaser was entitled to receive under the relevant damage caps. The circuit court entered final judgment for Purchaser. The agent for the stockholders of Seller and former stockholders of Seller appealed, arguing that the circuit court improperly construed the merger agreement as to which damage cap was controlling under the facts of the case. The Supreme Court agreed with Appellants and reversed, holding that the circuit court applied the incorrect damage cap. View "Shareholder Representative Services v. Airbus Americas, Inc." on Justia Law

Thirteen-year-old Caleb Smith drowned on a Boy Scout camping trip. Chancy Elliott, on behalf of Caleb’s estate, brought a wrongful death suit against Trevor Carter, the peer leader of Caleb’s troop, alleging gross negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment as to Carter, concluding that, as a matter of law, a jury could not find Carter’s actions constituted gross negligence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, although Carter’s efforts to render assistance when Caleb fell in the water may have been inadequate or ineffectual, they were not so insufficient as to constitute a complete neglect for Caleb’s safety, which is required to establish gross negligence. View "Elliott v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth initiated proceedings under the Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act to involuntarily commit Brady Proffitt as a sexually violent predator. After a trial, the jury found that the evidence had failed to prove that Proffitt was a sexually violent predator. The Commonwealth filed a motion to set aside the verdict, but the circuit court denied the motion. The Commonwealth appealed, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of two witnesses as irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and cumulative. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony, and the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "Commonwealth v. Proffitt" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court subsequently granted the Commonwealth’s motion to amend the indictment and also found Defendant guilty of shooting another person in the commission of a felony. The court of appeals denied Defendant’s petition for appeal. Defendant appealed, asserting that the lower courts erred in concluding that the facts did not support Defendant’s claim that he acted in self-defense. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and vacated the convictions, holding that the facts in the record supported Defendant’s claim that he shot the victim in self-defense. View "Hines v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to computer solicitation of a child. Defendant subsequently submitted a pro se notice of appeal, arguing that he was forced to sign the plea deal out of fear and anxiety. The trial court subsequently sentenced Defendant in accordance with the plea agreement. Thereafter, Defendant’s counsel filed a notice of appeal and a motion to withdraw guilty plea. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction and, alternatively, that Defendant did not prove “manifest injustice” to withdraw his guilty plea. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction after the appeal was filed to consider Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court declined to address whether Defendant had shown manifest injustice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the lower courts erred in ruling that the trial court had lost jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea; but (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion on the alternative basis that Defendant failed to prove manifest injustice. View "Velazquez v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In 2004, the prior owner of certain property acquired title to the property and granted a deed of trust on the property to Bank of America. The City of Portsmouth subsequently created the New Port Community Development Authority (CDA), which included the property at issue. In 2006, the CDA authorized the issuance of special assessment bonds, and the City enacted an ordinance establishing special assessments on properties in the CDA district. The prior owner subsequently subdivided the property and sold individual lots. In 2011, Bank of America sold the notes it held to Plaintiff and assigned it the deed of trust. Following the prior owner’s default, the property was foreclosed upon, and Plaintiff was the successful bidder. Plaintiff then filed suit, claiming that the special assessment lien was extinguished by the foreclosure sale and that the special assessments should be declared void because no CDA bond funds remained to construct additional improvements. The circuit court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a special assessment lien has priority over a deed of trust that was recorded before the special assessments, and therefore, Virginia law foreclosed Plaintiff’s challenge. View "Cygnus Newport-Phase 1B, LLC v. City of Portsmouth" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to the statutory rape of his half-sister, the aggravated malicious wounding of his father, and the malicious wounding of his stepmother. At sentencing, the trial court ordered lifetime probation following Defendant’s incarceration and ordered no contact with the victims as a condition of his suspended sentences. Defendant petitioned for appeal, challenging the trial court’s sentencing order. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering lifetime probation and imposing the no-contact condition on his suspended sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit in Defendant’s challenges to the sentencing order. View "Du v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law