Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against Defendant, an oral maxillofacial surgeon, after Defendant’s thwarted attempted to extract three of Plaintiff’s wisdom teeth resulted in permanent numbness in Plaintiff’s lower left jaw area. Plaintiff contended that Defendant was negligent in failing to properly diagnose the condition of his wisdom teeth and in recommending and performing the teeth extractions. The jury rendered a verdict for Plaintiff. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in excluding evidence of the risk of surgery discussions between him and Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in excluding from evidence Defendant’s risk of surgery discussions with Plaintiff. View "Fiorucci v. Chinn" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of statutory burglary in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-91. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the Commonwealth established only that he went into a crawl space underneath a dwelling house and failed to prove that he actually broke into and entered the actual house. The court of appeals upheld the conviction, concluding that the crawl space in this case constituted part of the dwelling house. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the crawl space was structurally part of the dwelling house, and therefore, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction of statutory burglary. View "Grimes v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of counterfeit currency in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-173 after being found with eighteen twenty-dollar bills on his person that were counterfeit. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence, as the Commonwealth failed to prove that he possessed the bills, that he knew they were forged, or that he had the intent to utter or employ them as true. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circumstances were sufficient to support an inference that Defendant possessed the bills, knew the bills to be counterfeit, and had the requisite intent to utter the counterfeit money in his possession. View "Hawkins v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

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