Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer (Defendant), claiming that Defendant violated Va. Code Ann. 40.1-51.2:1 by terminating his employment in retaliation for his complaining about unsafe practices at Defendant’s facility. Plaintiff sought punitive damages in addition to other remedies. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff and awarded him compensatory and punitive damages. The circuit court entered judgment in accordance with the verdict. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment as to the award of punitive damages and otherwise affirmed, holding that “appropriate relief” in section 40.1-51.2:2, the provision providing the remedies for violations of section 40.1-51.2:1, does not include punitive damages. View "Property Damage Specialists, Inc. v. Rechichar" on Justia Law

Eliseo Granado was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Granado filed a notice of appeal. On the deadline for filing a written statement of facts, Granado filed a proposed written statement of facts in the circuit court clerk’s office, but the clerk’s office did not include the original proposed written statement of facts in the contents of the record submitted to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied Granado’s petition for appeal, concluding that the statement of facts was not timely filed and was not part of the record to be considered on appeal, and therefore, the record was insufficient to address the assignments of error raised by Granado. Granado then filed a demand for review by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals. The panel denied Granado’s petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Court of Appeals erred by ruling that there was no statement of facts in the record for its consideration because that the statement of facts was timely filed in the circuit court and was properly part of the record. View "Granado v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Shannon Walters sustained serious injuries when her 1995 Mazda Miata convertible overturned while she was driving it with the soft top closed. Walters filed negligence and breach of implied warranty of merchantability claims against Mazda Motor Corporation and Mazda Motor of American, Inc. (collectively, Mazda), arguing that the soft top’s latching system was defective and that she was injured after the windshield headed disconnected from the top and collapsed into the occupant compartment. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Walters. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Mazda had no legally recognized duty to design or supply a soft top that provided occupant protection in a rollover crash; and (2) the opinion offered by Walters’ expert that the Mada Miata latching system was defectively designed lacked an adequate foundation, and therefore, the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting it. Final judgment entered for Mazda. View "Holiday Motor Corp. v. Walters" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of statutory burglary, possession of a firearm by a felon, assault and battery of a family member, pointing or brandishing a firearm, and credit card theft in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-192(1)(a). At issue on appeal was whether section 18.2-192(1)(a) requires proof of the specific intent to use, sell or transfer a credit card that has been taken from a cardholder without consent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that credit card theft under the first prong of section 18.2-192(1)(a) is a general intent crime completed upon an unlawful taking and does not require that the Commonwealth allege or prove the specific intent required to support a conviction under the second prong of the statute. View "Scott v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony malicious bodily injury by means of a caustic substance, felony assault and battery of a law enforcement officer, obstruction of justice, and grand larceny from the person. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Rule 5:17(c)(iii) precluded the Court from considering Defendant’s first and second assignments of error; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s convictions for felony malicious bodily injury by means of a caustic substance, assault and battery of a law enforcement officer, and obstruction of justice. View "Wright v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Governor Terence McAuliffe issued an executive order restoring certain civil rights, including the right to vote, of approximately 206,000 Virginians who had been convicted of a felony but who had since completed their sentences of incarceration and supervised release. Petitioners filed a petition seeking writs of mandamus and prohibition seeking to cancel the voter registrations accomplished pursuant to the executive order and prevent further such registrations, asserting that the Governor’s executive order and any similar subsequent orders nullified the Virginia Constitution’s general prohibition against voting by convicted felons who had completed sentences of incarceration and supervision. The Supreme Court issued the requested writ and ordered the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the State Board of Elections, and the Virginia Department of Elections to take certain actions in response to this Court’s opinion, holding that the executive order violated Va. Const. art. I, 7 and Va. Const. art. II, 1. View "Howell v. McAuliffe" on Justia Law

The two decedents in these consolidated cases were residents at two different nursing homes operating by Virginia Health Services, Inc. After their deaths, the executors asked the nursing homes to provide copies of the written policies and procedures in effect during the decedents’ stays. The nursing homes refused, and the decedents’ estates filed declaratory judgment complaints seeking to assert a private right of action for the production of documents under 12 VAC 5-371-140(G). Specifically, the estates sought an order of “specific performance” compelling the nursing homes to provide the requested documents. The circuit court dismissed both complaints, holding that the regulation did not require the production of documents requested by the estates. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on different grounds, holding (1) the governing statute does not imply a private right of action for the enforcement of this regulation; and (2) therefore, the estates’ claims cannot be enforced in a declaratory judgment action. View "Cherrie v. Virginia Health Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. Prior to sentencing, Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he had a reasonable basis for asserting the defense of duress. The trial court denied the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, concluding that there was no evidence of imminent harm, and therefore, Defendant’s defense of duress was not reasonable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no indication that any harm was imminent and in therefore denying Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Edmonds v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. Prior to sentencing, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he made a material mistake of fact in pleading guilty in that he had a reasonable basis for asserting the defense of necessity. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) prejudice to the Commonwealth is a relevant factor that should be considered when reviewing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, and, in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the prejudice to the Commonwealth outweighed any equities that favored granting Defendant’s motion; and (2) the Court of Appeals did not err in finding that Defendant did not have a reasonable defense to the charge of possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. View "Small v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

This case involved a royalty dispute over the use of nuclear technology. Areva NP, Inc. filed a complaint against Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) and affiliated companies (collectively, the B&W defendants), alleging breach of contract and violation of the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Areva on both claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by failing to set aside the verdict and by entering judgment for the B&W defendants on Areva’s royalty and trade secrets claims. Final judgment entered dismissing Areva’s claims. View "Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Areva NP, Inc." on Justia Law