Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Landowner filed a complaint against Western Virginia Water Authority (the Authority) after the Authority’s sewer line burst on his property and caused extensive damage, including the collapse of a ten-foot high retaining wall running along the rear of the property. The Authority filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that operating and maintaining the sewer line was a governmental function and, therefore, the doctrine of sovereign immunity precluded liability. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in holding that the Authority was entitled to sovereign immunity because the maintenance and operation of the sanitary sewer system was a proprietary function. Remanded. View "Robertson v. W. Va. Water Auth." on Justia Law

When Dr. David Roberts performed amniocentesis on Plaintiff’s mother, who was pregnant with Plaintiff, bleeding occurred. Complications arose from the unsuccessful amniocentesis, and Plaintiff was born with damaged kidneys and cerebral palsy. Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment against Dr. Roberts and other defendants for medical malpractice. Plaintiff asserted that her claim was not covered by Virginia’s Medical Malpractice Act because she was not a “patient” as defined by the Act where she was not a “natural person” at the time of the treatment, and therefore, her claim was not subject to the Act’s statutory cap on damages. The jury returned a $7 million verdict in Plaintiff’s favor. The trial court reduced the verdict, holding that the cap applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Virginia’s statutory cap on damages applied to Plaintiff’s cause of action because Plaintiff became a “patient” when she was born alive, and therefore, her claim fell within the Act. View "Simpson v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. The circuit court accepted the guilty plea and entered it in the record. Defendant subsequently asked the circuit court to withhold a finding of guilt and defer the disposition. The circuit court denied the request, concluding that it lacked the authority to withhold a finding of guilt and defer adjudication for possible future dismissal of the charges. The court then entered an order finding Defendant guilty. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court’s accepting and entering Defendant’s guilty pleas in a written order was not a formal adjudication of guilt; and (2) thus, the court erred in concluding it no longer had the inherent authority to consider any disposition other than to impose the legislatively prescribed punishment. View "Starrs v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for felony child abuse and neglect. Defendant made an Alford plea, and the circuit court found Defendant guilty and placed Defendant on supervised probation. The following year, while attempting to purchase a firearm, Defendant completed a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms form (ATF form) indicating she was not under indictment or information for a felony. Defendant was later found guilty of willfully and intentionally making a false statement on the ATF form. Defendant’s probation was subsequently revoked, and Defendant was convicted on the earlier child neglect charge. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that she was not under indictment when she filled out the ATF form because her indictment was extinguished upon making an Alford plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that Defendant knew she was under indictment when she completed the ATF form. View "Maldonado-Mejia v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant, a teacher at a vocational school who also supervised students on the sidewalk outside his classroom, was indicted on three counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor by a person in a custodial or supervisory relationship. A jury convicted Defendant on all three counts. At issue on appeal was whether the evidence showed Defendant had a custodial or supervisory relationship over A.G., a student at the school, who was not one of Defendant’s students but whom Defendant saw every day when he monitored the sidewalk. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the proscribed acts occurred while Defendant maintained a custodial or supervisory relationship with A.G. View "Linnon v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography. Defendant appealed, contending that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the evidence seized from his computer. The court of appeals dismissed Defendant’s petition for appeal. The court declined to address the Fourth Amendment question and instead ruled, sua sponte, that defendant’s assignment of error was insufficient under Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5A:12(c). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s assignment of error was sufficiently detailed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 5A:12(c). Remanded with directions to review the petition for appeal on the merits. View "Findlay v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In 1887, Jacob and Marry Fuller conveyed the coal interests in their 414-acre tract to Joseph Doran and W.A. Dick. In 1918, W.T. Fuller, the successor in interest to the Fullers, conveyed to Unice Nuckles a seventy-five-acre portion of the 414-acre tract. Appellant, as lessee under the successors in interest to Nuckles, claimed the mineral rights, excluding coal, in the seventy-five acre tract. Appellees claimed those same rights as successors in interest to the Fullers. The circuit court concluded that the 1918 deed excepted all coals and minerals from the conveyance and that, therefore, Appellees owned the mineral estate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the 1918 deed conveyed to Nuckles and her successors in interest all of the mineral estate in the seventy-five acres except the coal previously conveyed to others. View "CNX Gas Co. v. Rasnake" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and violation of a protective order. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by failing to order a second competency evaluation after his counsel discovered new information regarding Defendant’s life history and physical trauma he suffered in his youth. The court of appeals denied Defendant’s petition for appeal. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court of appeals erred in denying his appeal because there was probable cause to believe he was incompetent to stand trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was no probable cause to order a second competency evaluation. View "Dang v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Tanisha Bates was indicted for arson. The circuit court found Bates not guilty by reason of insanity. Subsequently, the circuit court concluded that Bates was in need of inpatient hospitalization and committed her to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err when it determined that the particular circumstances warranted Bates’ commitment to inpatient hospitalization rather than to conditional release because it correctly applied the standards articulated in Va. Code Ann. 19.2-182.3 and 19.2-182.7 to the present case. View "Bates v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Landowner initiated plans to develop his property as a cluster subdivision. Landowner received a compliance letter from the county zoning administrator indicating that Landowner’s property met the standards set forth in the applicable ordinance. After the zoning administrator issued the compliance letter, the county’s board of supervisors repealed the ordinance. Landowner filed a declaratory judgment action against the county and the board, seeking a declaration that he obtained a vested right to develop his property as a by-right cluster subdivision in accordance with the terms of the ordinance. In support of his claim, Landowner asserted that the compliance letter constituted a significant affirmative governmental act under Va. Code Ann. 15.2-2307, which was necessary to find Landowner had vested land use rights. The circuit court ruled in favor of Landowner. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the zoning administrator’s issuance of the confirmation letter was not a significant affirmative governmental act; and (2) therefore, the circuit court erred in holding that Landowner acquired a vested right under section 15.2-2307 to develop his property as a cluster subdivision. View "Bd. of Supervisors of Prince George County v. McQueen" on Justia Law