Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-266. The arresting officer found Defendant sleeping in the driver’s seat of his vehicle, which was parked in his private driveway, with the key in the ignition. The jury returned a guilty verdict. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction because he was not “operating” the vehicle “on a highway.” The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was in actual physical control of his vehicle, and therefore, under prior case law, the evidence was sufficient to conclude that he was an operator of the vehicle; and (2) section 18.2-266 contains no “on a highway” requirement for the operation of motor vehicles. View "Sarafin v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Mother and Father (“Parents”) were the parents of twin girls. Mother was a member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation (“Tribe”), Father was not a member of any tribe, and the children were either members of, or eligible to be members of, the Tribe. The Dinwiddie Department of Social Services (DDSS) filed petitions to terminate Parents’ parental rights. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (“J&DR court”) denied the petitions. The DDSS appealed. The Tribe and Parents sought to transfer the case to tribal court. The trial court held that good cause existed not to transfer the proceeding to tribal court and denied the motion to transfer. The court then terminated Parents’ parental rights. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's decision on the motion to transfer, vacated the award terminating Parents' parental rights, and remanded. In so doing, the court rejected the traditional “best interests of the child” test in favor of a more limited test involving a substantial risk of harm to a child arising from the transfer to a tribal court. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded in light of the standards articulated by the court of appeals in Thompson v. Fairfax County Dep’t of Family Servs. View "Dinwiddie Dep’t of Social Servs. v. Nunnally" on Justia Law

Construction Manager subcontracted with Subcontractor to do work on a construction project. After the project was substantially complete, Subcontractor recorded a mechanic’s lien for unpaid work on the project. Subcontractor then filed a complaint against Construction Manager as the general contractor of the project, the owner of the property (Landowner), and the bank that financed the project (Bank) to enforce its mechanic’s lien. Construction Manager did not enter an appearance in the case. The circuit court subsequently granted an application filed by Landowner and Bank and released the real estate that had been subject to Subcontractor’s mechanic’s lien. Bank filed a motion to dismiss the mechanic’s lien claim on the basis that Subcontractor failed to timely serve Construction Manager, who it alleged to be a necessary party to the mechanic’s lien enforcement action. The circuit court agreed and dismissed the mechanic’s lien claim with prejudice. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Construction Manager, as the general contractor, was not a necessary party to Subcontractor’s mechanic’s lien enforcement action. Remanded. View "Synchronized Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Prav Lodging, LLC" on Justia Law

Twelve years after he pled guilty to capital murder in exchange for a sentence of life without the possibility of parole Appellant filed a motion to vacate his sentence. Appellant, who was seventeen years old when he committed the murder, argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama applied retroactively to his case. The circuit denied the motion without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the sentencing scheme applicable to Appellant’s conviction was not a mandatory life without the possibility of parole scheme; and (2) therefore, even if Miller applied retroactively, it was not applicable to the Virginia sentencing statutes at issue in this case. View "Jones v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Joey Bennett and Derek Folston, police officers working for the City of Norfolk, were responding to a domestic disturbance call in separate vehicles when Folston’s vehicle struck Donnell Worlsey, who was riding a bicycle. Worsley died as a result of injuries. Carolyn McBride, as administrator of Worsley’s estate, filed simple negligence claim against Bennett and Folston (together, Defendants), individually and as employees of the City. The trial court held that Defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity because they had exercised discretion in determining whether and how to respond to the dispatch. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in exercising their judgment and discretion about the best means of effectuating a governmental function by embracing the requisite special risks, including operating their vehicles in an emergency manner involving speeds in excess of the speed limit, Defendants triggered the application of sovereign immunity. View "McBride v. Bennett" on Justia Law

After a trial, the circuit court found Defendant guilty of possessing heroin with the intent to distribute. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court violated Sixth Amendment rights by denying him a continuance on the day of trial for the purported purpose of substituting court appointed counsel with retained counsel of his choice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s continuance request was deficient as a matter of law because Defendant established no factual predicate for seeking substitution of other counsel in place of his court appointed counsel under the authority of the Sixth Amendment; and (2) therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a continuance and in proceeding to trial with Defendant being represented by his court appointed attorney. View "Brown v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Charles Settle was fatally injured when a train struck the dump truck he was operating. At the time of the collision, Settle was traveling on Kapp Valley Way, and RGR, LLC had stacked lumber near the railroad tracks. Georgia Settle, as personal representative of her husband’s estate, sued RGR and other defendants, alleging that RGR created a hazardous condition by stacking lumber near the railroad tracks and breached its duty of reasonable care to Settle by blocking the view of those traveling on Kapp Valley Way. The jury rendered a verdict awarding $2.5 million to Mrs. Settle. RGR appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in holding that RGR owed a duty of reasonable care to Settle or in instructing the jury on that duty; (2) the court did not err in finding that Settle was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law and that RGR’s negligence was a proximate cause of the collision; but (3) the circuit court erred in calculating the offset required under Va. Code 8.01-35.1. Remanded. View "RGR, LLC v. Settle" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint in 2010 alleging wrongful death and medical malpractice against healthcare providers (Defendants). During pretrial discovery, Plaintiff filed two separate motions to compel, which the trial court denied. Prior to trial, Plaintiff took a voluntary nonsuit. In 2010, Plaintiff filed a new complaint against the same defendants alleging the same cause of action. The trial court entered an agreed order incorporating the discovery conducted and taken in the 2010 action into the 2012 action. After the jury returned a defense verdict, Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial and to reconsider certain evidentiary rulings, challenging the trial court’s denial of her motions to compel in the nonsuited action. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the trial court’s agreed order did not expressly incorporate the motions, objections, or rulings made by the court in the 2010 nonsuit action into the 2012 action, these rulings could not be challenged in this appeal. View "Temple v. Mary Washington Hosp." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a severance deed conveying ownership of, and the right to remove, coal and timber underlying and appurtenant to a certain tract of land. The parties to this appeal were the successors-in-interest to the grantors named in the severance deed (the Surface Owners) and the successor-in-interest to the grantees of the coal rights named in the deed (the Coal Owner). The Surface Owners and the Coal Owner asserted conflicting claims to royalties generated by the extraction of coal bed methane gas (CBM) from the coal seams underlying the property. The Surface Owners filed this declaratory judgment action against the Coal Owner asserting that they were the sole owners of the CBM produced from their land and that they were entitled to all the royalties therefrom. The circuit court granted judgment for the Surface Owners, declaring that the Surface Owners owned the CBM and were entitled to receive the royalties therefrom. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Surface Owners had at all times owned all mineral estates within their lands except coal, and therefore, the Surface Owners were entitled to all royalties accrued from the production of CBM produced from their land and those yet to accrue. View "Swords Creek Land P'ship v. Belcher" on Justia Law

Shellie Rae Rose filed a petition for a protective order against Jeffrey Paul Stephens, her former boyfriend. After a hearing, the circuit court granted Rose’s petition, concluding that Rose had been reasonably placed in apprehension of bodily injury by Stephens’ actions, which constituted stalking. Stephens appealed, arguing that the evidence did not establish the elements of stalking because Rose failed to show that he directed “an act of violence, force or threat” toward her. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding of stalking on the part of Stephens, and therefore, the court did not err in granting Rose’s petition for a protective order. View "Stephens v. Rose" on Justia Law