Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of rape, four counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of aggravated sexual battery for offenses committed against his stepdaughter. As a condition of Defendant’s probation, the court ordered that Defendant submit to warrantless, suspicionless searches of his person, property, residence, and vehicle at any time by any probation or law enforcement officer. Defendant challenged this probation condition on appeal. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the condition was reasonable under the facts of this case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the probation condition at issue was not reasonable in light of the offenses for which Defendant was convicted, his background, and the surrounding circumstances. View "Murry v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Stacy McMahon (McMahon) and Melanie White Wirick (Wirick), formerly Melanie White, were the biological parents of Addison Grace White (Addison). McMahon and Wirick were never married. When Addison reached school age, the parties agreed that McMahon would have primary physical custody of Addison during hte school year and Wirick would have primary physical custody during the summer. McMahon later filed a petition seeking to change Addison’s surname from White to McMahon. Wirick objected to the name change. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that a name change was not in Addison’s best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err to the extent that it relied on the holding in Spero v. Heath to determine whether the name change was in Addison’s best interest; and (2) did not err in concluding that the name change was not in Addison’s best interest. View "McMahon v. Wirick" on Justia Law

Loudoun County’s Board of Supervisors required the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office to implement three employment practices to reduce the hours that would be considered overtime. The Board also raised the number of hours constituting the law-enforcement employees’ regularly scheduled work hours. Certain law-enforcement employees, including deputies who worked on patrol, filed suit against the County, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Sheriff, alleging that Defendants violated state and federal law by wrongfully calculating and underpaying overtime hours. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Defendants on the patrol deputies’ claims. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) two of the employment practices adopted by the Sheriff’s Office violated the Virginia Gap Pay Act; and (2) the remaining employment practice neither violated the Act nor violated the employees’ contractual employment rights. View "Bailey v. County of Loudoun" on Justia Law

Patricia Kohn, the wife of John Kohn and the administrator of her husband’s estate, filed a wrongful death complaint against several officers and instructors associated with the Norfolk Police Department and the Norfolk Police Academy, alleging that John died as a result of multiple blows to the head inflicted during his training to become a City of Norfolk police officer. Defendants filed a plea in bar asserting that Plaintiff’s action was barred by the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the plea in bar and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Supreme court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in holding that the exclusivity provision of the Act barred this action. View "Kohn v. Marquis" on Justia Law

In 2012, Dominion Virginia Power filed an application with the State Corporation Commission seeking approval of a power station and transmission interconnection facilities associated with the generation plant. Dominion’s application also sought approval of a rate adjustment clause (RAC) to recover the costs of the power station and the associated transmission infrastructure. As part of the RAC, Dominion sought an enhancement on its general rate of return on common equity (ROE) for a certain period and proposed applying the enhanced ROE to the costs of the power station and associated transmission infrastructure. The Commission approved the power station and associated transmission infrastructure and allowed Dominion to recover an enhanced ROE for the transmission infrastructure. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission properly interpreted Va. Code 56-585.1(A)(6) to allow Dominion to recover an enhanced ROE for the transmission infrastructure associated with the power station and included in the subsection (A)(6) RAC for that facility. View "Attorney Gen. v. State Corp. Comm'n" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several crimes associated with the robbery of a victim and the invasion of his home. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing his proffered jury instruction, which should be given if a witness whose testimony is at issue is an accomplice and if his or her testimony is uncorroborated. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s refusal of the proposed jury instruction, concluding that the testimony at issue had been corroborated. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the witness here was an accomplice and his testimony was not corroborated, and therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing Defendant’s proffered jury instruction. Remanded. View "Via v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Decedent was fatally injured when a train struck the dump truck Decedent was operating. RGR, LLC operated a business offloading and reloading lumber adjacent to the railroad tracks. Decedent’s Estate filed a wrongful death action against RGR and others, alleging that Defendants created a hazardous condition by stacking lumber near the railroad tracks, which blocked the view of Decedent so that he could not see the approaching train in time to avoid the collision. The jury returned a verdict for the Estate in the amount of $2.5 million. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment and entered final judgment for RGR, holding that the evidence established that Decedent was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because he did not look to see if a train was approaching, and his failure to do so was a proximate cause of the accident. View "RGR, LLC v. Settle" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of two counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of object sexual penetration for events alleged to have taken place during sleepovers at his home. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to permit him to elicit evidence of his good character through two witnesses. The Court of Appeals denied Defendant’s petition for appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and vacated the convictions, holding that the circuit court erred by sustaining the Commonwealth’s objection to Defendant’s question seeking admissible character evidence, and the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "Gardner v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Administrators of the estates of two individuals killed in a single-engine airplane crash filed wrongful death actions against Honeywell International, Inc., the manufacturer of the plane’s autopilot system, alleging that Honeywell breached of the warranty of merchantability. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Honeywell. The Administrators appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erroneously admitted hearsay statements in testimony regarding an accident investigation report prepared by the Mooney Airplane Company describing its investigation of the crash, and their admission was not harmless error; and (2) the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting certain opinion testimony and in allowing Honeywell’s counsel to make certain statements during closing argument. View "Harman v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree murder of his wife, abduction of his father and his three children, and use of a firearm while attempting to murder his wife. The charges stemmed from an incident in which Defendant verbally threatened his wife’s life while brandishing two weapons when his children and father were present. The Court of Appeals affirmed the attempted murder and firearm convictions but reversed the abduction convictions for insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the portion of the court of appeals’ judgment reversing Defendant’s convictions for abduction of his father and children, as the evidence was sufficient to prove detention by intimidation and intent to deprive the victims of their personal liberty; and (2) affirmed the portion of the court of appeals’ judgment upholding Defendant’s convictions for attempted first degree murder and use of a firearm during the commission of an attempted felony. View "Commonwealth v. Herring" on Justia Law