Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of distributing child pornography. The court of appeals upheld the convictions. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove distribution because the peer-to-peer software he used to access and download child pornography automatically placed the files into a shared folder accessible to other users of the software. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Defendant reproduced by any means, including by computer, sold, gave away, electronically transmitted, or distributed child pornography in violation of Va. Code 18.2-374.1:1(C)(i). View "Kelley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant were involved in an automobile accident in which the vehicles being operated by each of them collided. Plaintiff filed suit and attempted to serve the complaint and summons on Defendant at a prior address despite having knowledge of Defendant’s correct address. Plaintiff subsequently used Defendant’s proper address for service of additional pleadings but did not serve the complaint and summons at his current address. Plaintiff later obtained a default judgment awarding the full amount of damages she claimed. Thereafter, Plaintiff moved to set aside the default judgment, averring that there existed some question regarding whether Defendant was validly served with process. The circuit court denied Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the decision whether to grant Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the default judgment was within the circuit court’s discretion; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment. View "Sauder v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

The State Corporation Commission issued to Virginia Electric and Power Company certificates of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction of electric transmission facilities. BASF Corporation appealed, challenging the approval of the transmission line’s route across an environmental remediation site on its property along the James River. James City County, Save the James Alliance Trust, and James River Association (collectively, JCC) also appealed, challenging the approval of an overhead transmission line that will cross the James River and a switching station that will be located in James City County. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the Commission did not err in its construction or application of Va. Code 56-46.1’s requirements that the power company reasonably minimize adverse environmental impacts on the area concerned, and the Commission’s findings were not contrary to the evidence or without evidentiary support; and (2) the Commission erred in concluding that the switching station was a “transmission line” under Va. Code 56-46.1(F) and therefore not subject to local zoning ordinances. Remanded as to the JCC appellants. View "BASF Corp. v. State Corp. Comm’n" on Justia Law

Vu Vo filed a lawsuit against Christopher Bartolomucci seeking damages for injuries he sustained in a vehicle collision. Bartolomucci filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to establish that his vehicle he was driving at the time of the collision fell within the scope of the Federal Insurance Company’s insurance policy issued to Bartolomucci’s law firm. The circuit court allowed Bartolomucci’s suit to continue on the theory that he was covered by the policy. After a jury trial, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of Federal Insurance, holding that the policy did not cover Bartolomucci’s use of the vehicle at the time of the collision. At issue on appeal was the scope and application of the policy, which provided coverage for Bartolomucci’s vehicle only when that vehicle was “used in” the law firm’s business or personal affairs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the policy did not cover Bartolomucci’s use of the vehicle at the time of the collision because a morning commute by a law firm partner from home to work does not constitute “use” of the partner’s vehicle “in” a law firm’s business or personal affairs. View "Bartolomucci v. Federal Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, Inc. filed a defamation action against three John Doe defendants alleging that they falsely represented themselves as Hadeed customers and posted negative reviews about Hadeed’s services on Yelp, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. Hadeed issued a subpoena duces tecum to Yelp seeking documents located in California revealing the identity and other information about the reviews’ authors. The circuit court entered an order enforcing the subpoena duces tecum and holding Yelp in civil contempt when it refused to comply. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that service of the subpoena on Yelp’s registered agent in Virginia provided the circuit court with jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena duces tecum. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals and the contempt order of the circuit court, holding that the circuit court was not empowered to enforce the subpoena duces tecum against Yelp, as subpoena power was not conferred upon the circuit court by Yelp’s act in registering to conduct business in Virginia or designating a registered agent for service of process in Virginia. View "Yelp, Inc. v. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning" on Justia Law

Appellant was arrested on warrants charging him with several crimes. The general district court admitted Appellant to bail. The Commonwealth appealed the bail decision. The circuit court admitted Appellant to bail pending trial, setting his bond at $60,000. The Commonwealth again appealed the bail decision. The Court of Appeals revoked the circuit court’s order setting bond and ordered Appellant’s incarceration pending trial, concluding that Appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption against bail in the circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Court of Appeals did not err in its appellate review of the circuit court’s decision. View "Shannon v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a sheriff’s deputy, was terminated after he reported to the sheriff alleged irregularities in several criminal cases. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that his termination was impermissible retaliation in violation of Va. Code 15.2-1512.4, which protects the right of “any local employee” to express opinions to elected officials on matters of public concern. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, ruling that Plaintiff was not a local employee for the purposes of section 15.2-1512.4. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a sheriff’s deputy, who is not an employee of the sheriff, is not a local employee for purposes of section 15.2-1512.4. View "Roop v. Whitt" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant, a native of Ethiopia, pleaded guilty to petit larceny. At no time did Appellant’s court-appointed attorney advise Appellant of the collateral consequences of the plea and sentence upon his immigration status. Appellant was subsequently informed that he was subject to removal as a result of his conviction. Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. The circuit court sustained the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss the petition, concluding that Appellant was not prejudiced from his counsel’s failure to advise him of the adverse consequences on his immigration status of accepting the plea agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court applied an incorrect standard for determining whether prejudice resulted from the attorney’s failure to advise Appellant of the negative consequences of accepting the plea agreement. View "Zemene v. Clarke" on Justia Law

EE Mart, LLC brought an action in a Virginia circuit court against Suzanne Delyon, the former chief financial officer of EE Mart, and the other LLCs that she owned, alleging claims relating to insurance proceeds paid to Delyon by Traveler’s Insurance Company (Traveler’s). After it nonsuited the case, EE Mart brought an action against Traveler’s, Delyon, and the other LLCs in a Maryland circuit court relating to Traveler’s payment of the insurance proceeds to Delyon. Delyon and the other LLCs then filed the present action in a Virginia circuit court seeking to enjoin EE Mart from proceeding with the Maryland action and seeking a declaratory judgment that the Maryland action was without merit. EE Mart counterclaimed, asserting the same claims it had pled in the original action. The trial court dismissed EE Mart’s counterclaim with prejudice, finding it was frivolous. Delyon and the other LLCs then sought sanctions against EE Mart, claiming that the original action, Maryland action, and the counterclaim to the present action were frivolous. The trial court granted the motion and awarded attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed with regard to the amount of sanctions awarded, holding that the trial court erred in its calculation of the attorney’s fees it could award as a sanction. View "EE Mart F.C., LLC v. Delyon" on Justia Law

A county code compliance investigator issued Appellant a notice of violation regarding her property. The county zoning administrator then determined that Appellant had committed a violation. The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) upheld that violation determination. Plaintiff subsequently filed a petition for writ of certiorari to seek judicial review of the BZA’s final decision. Appellant, however, did not name the Board of Supervisors or any other party. The circuit court granted the zoning administrator’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that Appellant failed to add the Board of Supervisors as a party to the proceeding within the thirty-day statutory period. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that compliance with the styling requirement in Va. Code 15.2-2314 is required to trigger the circuit court’s active jurisdiction, and no waiver to the thirty-day filing requirement occurred in this case. View "Frace v. Johnson" on Justia Law