Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of murder, robbery, use of a firearm in the commission of robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the prosecution suppressed or failed to disclose certain exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The trial court ultimately dismissed the petition, concluding that it was untimely filed under Va. Code 8.01-654(A)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the tolling provision of Va. Code 8.01-229(D) was applicable to the limitations period of section 8.01-654(A)(2), and therefore, it was error to conclude that Defendant’s petition for habeas corpus was untimely; but (2) because the allegedly withheld evidence was not material, Defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the error. View "Hicks v. Dir., Dep't of Corr." on Justia Law

The City of Fredericksburg brought suit against CVAS 2, LLC, which owns real estate within the City’s geographic area, seeking to have CVAS 2’s real estate sold in order to collect the LLC’s outstanding payments for delinquent real estate taxes and special assessments. The circuit court entered a decree of sale ordering that CVAS 2’s real estate be sold in gross to pay the delinquent taxes, penalties and special assessments. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the City did not strictly comply with Va. Code 15.2-5158 and 58.1-3965(A) allowing for it to bring suit under the circumstances, and therefore, the circuit court lacked authority to order the sale of CVAS 2’s real estate. View "CVAS 2, LLC v. City of Fredericksburg" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the sale of Tails, Inc. Tails was organized as a Virginia corporation but changed its state of incorporation to Delaware as part of a Plan of Reorganization and Purchase Agreement pursuant to which all of the assets of Tails were eventually sold to Buena Suerte Holdings, Inc. Certain Minority Shareholders filed a complaint demanding shareholder appraisal rights, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding whether the transactions leading to the sale gave rise to appraisal rights for the Minority Shareholders and requesting monetary damages for violations of the alleged appraisal rights. The circuit court sustained Tails’s demurrer to the complaint, noting (1) changing the Tails corporate domicile from Virginia to Delaware did not trigger appraisal rights, and (2) the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to support the causes of action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the domestication of Tails as a Delaware corporation did not entitle the Minority Shareholders to appraisal rights; and (2) Delaware law properly applied in determining whether the Minority Shareholders were entitled to appraisal rights, and, under Delaware law, they were not. View "Fisher v. Tails, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2010, the Commissioner of Revenue of Arlington County (“County”) audited Nielsen for several of the previous tax years. Determining that Nielsen failed to pay sufficient tax on its business license, the County issued an additional tax assessment on Nielsen for the 2007 tax year. Nielsen appealed. The Virginia Tax Commissioner (“Commissioner”) concluded that the County had used an incorrect methodology in the 2007 tax year assessment and instead permitted a payroll percentage methodology to be used to calculate the deduction to the county tax on Nielsen’s business license. The County and the Commissioner appealed. The circuit court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and reinstated the County’s assessment, concluding that the Commissioner’s methodology for calculating the relevant tax deduction was contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious in its application. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commissioner’s ruling was not contrary to law or arbitrary and capricious in application. Remanded. View "Nielsen County v. Bd. of Arlington County" on Justia Law

In 2005, Donald Devine and his wife Nancy Devine acquired ownership of Rock Hall, a 200-year-old house. In 2007, Charles Buki and Kimberly Marsho signed a contract agreeing to purchase Rock Hall. Later that year, Buki and Marsho (together, Plaintiffs) brought suit against Donald and Nancy (together Defendants), alleging that Defendants fraudulently induced them to enter into the real estate contract and to close on Rock Hall by misrepresenting and concealing the true condition of the house. The trial court concluded that Nancy had committed no wrong but nonetheless granted rescission of the real estate contract against both Donald and Nancy, concluding that Nancy should be “responsible jointly and severally with her husband for the payment of the purchase price” of Rock Hall. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Nancy, the trial court had no basis for awarding any remedy, including rescission, against Nancy. View "Devine v. Buki" on Justia Law

In 2005, Donald Devine and his wife Nancy Devine acquired ownership of Rock Hall, a 200-year-old house. In 2007, Charles Buki and Kimberly Marsho signed a contract agreeing to purchase Rock Hall. Later that year, Buki and Marsho (together, Plaintiffs) brought suit against Donald and Nancy (together Defendants), alleging that Defendants fraudulently induced them to enter into the real estate contract and to close on Rock Hall by misrepresenting and concealing the true condition of the house. The trial court concluded that Plaintiffs were entitled to rescission of the contract where David, but not Nancy, committed fraud. The court awarded consequential damages and attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in granting rescission of the real estate contract based on Donald’s fraudulent concealment of the true state of the house and did not err in awarding attorney’s fees; (2) did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award punitive damages; and (3) erred in awarding consequential damages and prejudgment interest. View "Devine v. Buki" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated sexual battery. Defendant appealed, asserting that the circuit court erred when it allowed the Commonwealth to cross-examine him about whether a prior felony conviction involved lying, cheating or stealing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding that even if the testimony was erroneously admitted, the error was harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, assuming, without deciding, that the circuit court erred when it allowed the Commonwealth to ask Defendant whether one of his felony convictions involved lying, cheating or stealing, Defendant received a fair trial because the alleged error, at most, had only a slight effect on the jury. View "Shifflett v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Zachary Gage Duncan sustained a serious injury while driving his 2008 Hyundai Tiburon when he struck a tree. The side airbag did not deploy. Plaintiffs, individual and as Duncan’s guardians and conservators, filed suit against Hyundai, claiming breach of implied warranty of merchantability. During trial, Plaintiffs’ designated expert witness Geoffrey Mahon testified that the location of the side airbag sensor rendered the Tiburon unreasonably dangerous. Hyundai appealed from the judgment of the trial court, arguing that there was an insufficient foundation for the expert witness’s opinion. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding (1) Mahon’s opinion was premised upon his unfounded assumption that the side airbag would have deployed if the sensor had been located in a different area; and (2) because Mahon’s opinion supplied the only support for Plaintiffs’ claim that the vehicle was unreasonably dangerous, the inadmissibility of Mahon’s opinion was fatal to Plaintiffs’ claim. View "Hyundai Motor Co. v. Duncan" on Justia Law

She-Sha Cafe and Hookah Lounge is a hookah bar that serves food in areas where smoking occurs. In 2010, the Montgomery County Health Department charged She-Sha with two violations of the Virginia Indoor Clean Air Act (VICAA), which prohibits smoking in restaurants. The Virginia Department of Health upheld the violations, concluding that She-Sha was correctly labeled as a restaurant and that none of the exceptions in the VICAA applied. The State Health Commissioner and the circuit court upheld the violations. A panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that She-Sha was not exempt from regulation as a “retail tobacco store” because it was not operating exclusively as such. The full Court of Appeals overruled the panel, concluding that She-Sha, as a restaurant, was exempt from VICAA because it was also a retail tobacco store. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that She-Sha was not exempt from regulation under the VICAA because it was not exclusively a retail tobacco store. View "Va. Dep't of Health v. Kepa, Inc." on Justia Law

O. Ryland Tate, who was employed as a firefighter for the City of Danville, suffered a heart attack, did not return to work, and retired six months later. The City gave Tate the equivalent of his full wages in the form of sick leave pay. After his retirement, Tate used the balance of his accrued sick leave to obtain credit towards his retirement. The City subsequently paid indemnity benefits to Tate for his six-month period of disability pursuant to a Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission award. The City then filed this action against Tate seeking recovery of his sick leave pay, arguing that Tate was not entitled to receive both sick leave pay and workers’ compensation indemnity benefits for the same disability period. The circuit court dismissed the City’s complaint, concluding that the court did not have jurisdiction to decide the City’s claim because the City did not ask the Commission for a credit against the workers’ compensation award for the amounts the City paid Tate for sick leave. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the City did not have the authority to recover sick leave pay from Tate on the basis that he had also received workers’ compensation for the same disability period. View "City of Danville v. Tate" on Justia Law