Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was found guilty of felony murder and two felony drug offenses. The court of appeals reversed Appellant's felony murder conviction but refused to remand the case to the circuit court for resentencing of Appellant's two felony drug convictions on the basis that such relief was outside the scope of Appellant's assignment of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in refusing to remand Appellant's two felony drug convictions for resentencing after reversing Appellant's felony murder conviction, as Appellant suffered no reviewable injury from the fact that the sentencing guidelines would have been different had he not been convicted of felony murder at the time the circuit court sentenced him for his felony drug convictions. View "Woodard v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was Va. Code Ann. 15.2-2303.1:1(A), which provides that cash payment made pursuant to a cash proffer offered or accepted for residential construction on a per-dwelling unit shall be accepted by any locality only after the completion of the final inspection of the property. Here several developers and Williamsburg Landing (collectively, Respondents) made proffers to the County, which included per-dwelling cash payments, related to the rezoning of their property. The cash payments for some dwelling units made by Respondents were accepted by the County under the terms of the proffers after June 30, 2010 and prior to the completion of a final inspection of the dwelling units. The County filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, contending that section 15.2-2303.1:1(A) had no application to proffers agreed to prior to its effective date of July 1, 2010. The district court granted summary judgment to Respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that section 15.2-2303.1:1(A) applies to all payments of cash proffers due on or after July 1, 2010 regardless of whether the proffers were agreed to prior to that date. View "Bd. of Supervisors of James City County v. Windmill Meadows, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an assistant principal, filed an action against a local newspaper and and the author of the article at issue in this case, alleging libel, libel per se, and libel per quod, asserting that the article published by the newspaper damaged his reputation by falsely implying that he had “engaged in unethical conduct by obtaining preferential treatment for his son.” Defendants filed a demurrer denying that the article created such an implication. The circuit court overruled the demurrer. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. Thereafter, the circuit court granted Defendants’ motions to strike, entered a defense verdict, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) as a matter of law, the article was not reasonably capable of the defamatory meaning Plaintiff ascribed to it; and (2) accordingly, the circuit court erred by overruling Defendants’ demurrer, but the error was supplanted by the court’s final judgment in favor of Defendants. View "Webb v. Virginian-Pilot Media Cos., LLC" on Justia Law

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