Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal from an order dismissing an action for wrongful death presented the question whether the decedent, who was serving on active duty with the armed forces of the United States at the time of his injury, was covered by the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act. If his injury, which was the subject of this action, came within the purview of the Act, an award under the Act would have been his estate's exclusive remedy, barring this action. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the decedent never acquired the right to seek compensation under the Act, and therefore, the circuit court erred in dismissing the action. View "Gibbs v. Newport News Shipbuildng & Drydock Co." on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether the circuit court erred when it found that a county subdivision did not violate a restrictive covenant requiring compliance with the county's subdivision ordinance in effect in 1997. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in ruling that the county's 1997 subdivision ordinance did not incorporate the requirements of its 1997 zoning ordinance by implication; but (2) erred when it refused to consider claims that the subdivision violated certain provisions of the 1997 subdivision ordinance not specifically referenced in the amended complaint. View "Fein v. Payandeh" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether the circuit court erred when it held that Defendant was not entitled to credit toward his Virginia sentence for the period he was detained in a Virginia jail awaiting trial. At that time, he was a West Virginia prisoner receiving credit toward his West Virginia sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err when it held Defendant was not entitled to credit toward his Virginia sentence; and (2) the court erred in recharacterizing Defendant's pleading without providing him notice and the opportunity to be heard, but the error was harmless because Defendant was not required to challenge the recharacterization on the appeal, and he was not entitled to credit toward his Virginia sentence. View "Dorr v. Clark" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted in the district court of a felony third offense, DUI after being twice convicted of the same offense within ten years. The circuit court subsequently granted Appellant's motion to dismiss the second DUI case for denial of Appellant's right to a speedy trial. Appellant then filed a petition in the court of appeals for a writ of actual innocence with respect to his felony conviction, contending he was innocent of the felony because one of the requisite predicate misdemeanor convictions had been dismissed with prejudice. A court of appeals panel remanded the case for resentencing on the lesser-included offense of DUI, second conviction. The court of appeals thereafter granted the Commonwealth's petition for a rehearing en banc. The court of appeals, with ten judges sitting en banc, dismissed the writ of actual innocence without opinion by an equally-divided court and withdrew the previous order by the panel. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the panel's judgment could only have been withdrawn and thus reversed by a majority of the judges sitting in the court en banc. Remanded with direction to reinstate the judgment of the panel. View "Conley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of three counts of robbery and three counts of use or display of a firearm in committing those felonies. The circuit court ran the firearm sentences consecutively based upon what it interpreted as court of appeals precedent. Appellant appealed, arguing that neither the language of the use or display of a firearm statute, Va. Code Ann. 18.2-53.1, nor the language of the mandatory minimum sentencing statute prohibited the sentences imposed for such firearm charges from being run concurrently with each other. The court of appeals denied Appellant's appeal. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) multiple sentences imposed pursuant to Code 18.2-53.1 may be run concurrently; and (2) to the extent that the holding in Bullock v. Commonwealth was inconsistent with the holding here, that portion of the court of appeals' decision was reversed. Remanded for resentencing. View "Brown v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-308.2(A). Defendant appealed, arguing that he should have been convicted of only one continuous possession. The court of appeals upheld all three possession convictions, holding that each of the convictions was based on "distinguishable incidents." At issue on appeal was whether evidence of the possession of one firearm on three separate occasions can constitute three separate charges for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the incidents at issue constituted distinct acts or occurrences, each reflecting an enhanced danger to the public, and convictions for the three separate charges on the facts of this case were therefore valid under Code 18.2-308.2(A). View "Baker v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In this appeal, Appalachian Power Company (APCO) sought rate adjustment clause recovery of $33.3 million in environmental compliance costs that the State Corporation Commission denied. The Supreme Court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded, holding (1) APCO was entitled to a rate adjustment clause for recovery of actual costs it directly incurred for environmental compliance in 2009 and 2010 but did not recover through its base rates, and the portion of the Commission's decision denying recovery of environmental compliance costs on the basis that those costs were connected with projects included in APCO's base rates which APCO had the opportunity to recover was reversed; and (2) the portion of the Commission's decision denying APCO recovery of environmental compliance costs alleged to be embedded in the capacity equalization charges APCO paid to its affiliates in 2009 and 2010 was affirmed. Remanded. View "Appalachian Power Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether a condemnor may, in an eminent domain proceeding, alternatively assert ownership rights in the condemned property. The Court further considered whether the evidence in this case was sufficient to support the circuit court's ruling that the City of Virginia Beach proved an implied dedication of the disputed property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by allowing the City to condemn property that it also claimed to own; and (2) the evidence demonstrated that the City acquired the easements through an implied dedication based on the continued public use and the City's efforts in maintaining and patrolling the property. View "3232 Page Ave. Condo. Ass'n v. City of Virginia Beach" on Justia Law

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI) and Prosper Financial (Prosper) entered into a research contract. The contract provided two addresses in Florida for Prosper. VPI subsequently filed a complaint in Virginia for breach of contract. VPI attempted to secure service of process on Prosper through the Secretary of the Commonwealth. In its affidavit for service of process on the Secretary, VPI listed the address contained in the contract's notice provision as Prosper's last known address. After Prosper failed to file responsive pleadings, the trial court entered a default judgment against Prosper. Upon Prosper's motion, the trial court determined the order of default judgment should be set aside because service of process should have been attempted at both Florida addresses. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the final judgment against Prosper, holding (1) the use of one of the two Prosper addresses known to VPI was constitutional and satisfied the requirements of Va. Code Ann. 8.01-329(B), and therefore, the trial court's determination that both addresses were required was error; and (2) the trial court erred in setting aside the order of default judgment brought pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 8.01-428(D) without identifying its findings on the necessary elements of the action. View "Va. Polytechnic Inst. v. Prosper Fin., Inc." on Justia Law

Lloyd Tuttle Jr. appealed the circuit court's judgment holding that execution of a check payable to his wife, Grace Tuttle, excluded the funds from Grace's augmented estate and that therefore Lloyd's written consent or joinder was not required when Grace, before her death, gifted the funds to her son. Lloyd also appealed the circuit court's judgment holding him liable for more than one-half of an indebtedness evidenced by a note executed by him and Grace as co-makers. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Lloyd's check to Grace did not exclude those funds from Grace's augmented estate, and therefore, the circuit court erred by failing to include the funds in Grace's augmented estate; and (2) the circuit court erred by requiring Lloyd to pay more than one-half of the total joint indebtedness, as Lloyd was liable for only one-half of the indebtedness. View "Tuttle v. Webb" on Justia Law