Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part rulings made by the State Corporation Commission during its triennial review of Appalachian Power Company's rates, terms, and conditions pursuant to Va. Code 56.585.1, holding that remand was required for further proceedings.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the Commission (1) erred in finding that it was not reasonable for Appalachian to record its costs associated with the early retirement of its coal-fired power plants as asset impairments; (2) did not err when it implemented depreciation rates from the revised 2017 Depreciation Study for the years 2018 and 2019 in the triennial review; (3) did not err by refusing to apply Va. Code 56-585.1(E) retroactively; and (4) did not err in finding Appalachian's affiliate costs under an Inter-Company Power Agreement with Ohio Valley Electric Cooperation to be reasonable. View "Appalachian Power Co. v. State Corp. Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court finding Appellant in violation of probation and sentencing him to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence because the period of suspension had lapsed before his probation violation. The court of appeals disagreed, upholding the circuit court's judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court's order was consistent with, not violative of, the revocation power authorized by Va. Code 19.2-306(A). View "Hill v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction of three counts of computer solicitation of a minor, first offense, and two counts of computer solicitation of a minor, second offense, holding that any presumed error in excluding certain expert testimony was harmless.In his appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of Dr. Maurice Fisher, which Defendant intended to use in support of his entrapment defense. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the testimony did not express an opinion on the ultimate issue of Defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged offense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence of Defendant's prurient interest was overwhelming, and therefore, the testimony would not have influenced the jury or would have had but slight effect. View "Commonwealth v. Kilpatrick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying a refund of Business and Professional Occupational License (BPOL) taxes Coxcom, LLC paid to Fairfax County on the grounds that the Internet Tax Freedom Act's (ITFA) grandfather clause permitted the County to impose the tax, holding that the grandfather clause did not apply.Since 2000, Cox had provided internet access service to customers in the County. In 2016, Cox filed a request for a BPOL tax refund for the tax years 2013 through 2015, asserting that the federal ITFA preempted the County from imposing the BPOL tax on internet access service revenues. The circuit court concluded that the BPOL tax qualified for the grandfather clause exemption. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court correctly found that the ITFA applied to the County's BPOL tax; and (2) the grandfather clause did not rescue the County's imposition of a tax on internet access services. View "Coxcom, LLC v. Fairfax County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting Defendant's plea in bar to Plaintiff's negligence claim on the ground that he was protected by derivative sovereign immunity and granting Defendant's demurrer to Plaintiff's gross negligence claim because it was insufficiently pleaded, holding that there was no legal error in either of these decisions.Langston Patterson was an inmate in the Danville Adult Detention Center (DADC) when he suffered cardiac arrest and later died. The personal representative of his estate sued Defendant, the DADC physician, claiming that Defendant committed medical malpractice by failing to provide the necessary and appropriate care to Patterson. The circuit court granted Defendant's plea in bar to Plaintiff's negligence claim and Defendant's demurrer to Plaintiff's gross negligence claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error of law or any irrationality in the fact-finding of the circuit court; and (2) Defendant's claim for gross negligence failed as a matter of law. View "Patterson v. City of Danville" on Justia Law

Southwest Virginia Wildlife Center of Roanoke (SVWC) provides medical and rehabilitative care to 2,000 animals each year. SVWC is located at the end of a shared private easement that is approximately 476 feet long; the other properties that can only be accessed by the easement’s unpaved, single-lane dirt driveway, across their lawns. The easement is not maintained by any governmental entity. SVWC sought a special use permit to build a large “raptor building.” The Zoning Administrator determined that existing “accessory structures” on SVWC's property were either improperly granted zoning permits or had not been granted permits. The Board of Supervisors granted the special use permit, which retroactively authorized the accessory structures and the construction of the raptor building, subject to conditions requiring buffering and materials. Neighboring owners challenged the approval, arguing that traffic on the easement has increased “20- to 50-fold” since, SVWC began operating in 2014, causing “congestion, noise, dust, and light pollution” and posing a danger to their children.The trial court dismissed their complaint, citing lack of standing. The Virginia Supreme Court reversed. The dust, noise, and light pollution allegedly caused by the traffic on the easement constitute particularized harm to the plaintiffs. The complaint sufficiently alleged that the construction of the raptor building and the corresponding expansion of SVWC’s services would cause more traffic and supports a reasonable inference that the decision to retroactively approve the accessory structures would lead to traffic on the easement. View "Seymour v. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

Regulus, an LLC solely owned by Klug, is the holding company for all the rights, transactions, and income related to Klug’s literary works, which include several internationally-received legal fiction novels. In 2018, Klug filed a Virginia income tax return, attaching thereto a Schedule C to indicate that he derived business income in Charlottesville. The city could not locate a business license issued to Klug or to Regulus and requested information about Klug’s business and his income therefrom for the tax years 2015-2018. Klug responded that Charlottesville’s Ordinance does not apply to him because he “offer[s] no goods or services to the public[,]” has “no physical storefront or shingle[,]” “do[es] not advertise[,]” has no employees, has no inventory, and offers a “product” that is intangible intellectual property.The Virginia Supreme Court held that a freelance writer’s business does not provide a service and is not covered by the ordinance’s catchall provision. The court did not reach the question of whether the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the freelance writer. The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision to order the city to refund Klug his tax payments but concluded that the circuit court erred by awarding costs not essential for the prosecution of the suit. View "City of Charlottesville v. Regulus Books, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding in favor of the owner of rezoned property who claimed that the triggering of a conditional proffer operated as an unconstitutional condition, holding that the trial court did not err in ultimately reversing the zoning violation.The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County approved a rezoning for property subject to voluntary proffers. A conditional proffer called the transit proffer continuously applied since the original rezoning. The county approved the establishment of a commuter route to run from Albemarle County to downtown Charlottesville and concluded that a substantial portion of the funding for the route could come from the transit proffer funds. The county approved the appropriation of funds to establish the commuter route. When the property owner failed to make payments required by the transit proffer the county concluded that the owner was in violation of the county's zoning ordinance. The circuit court granted judgment in favor of the owner. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the county's demurrer and motion to strike and did not err in reversing the zoning violation. View "Board of Supervisors v. Route 29, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court that Neighbors lacked standing to challenge the judgment of Fairfax County's Zoning Administrator and Board of Zoning Appeals concluding that NewPort Academy, which sought to open a residential treatment center for teenage girls, was a "by right" use, holding that Neighbors had standing.Neighbors, who either owned houses or lived in houses next to the proposed treatment center, argued that the proposed facility was not a "by right" use in the zoning district, thus requiring a special exception permit to operate in a residential zone. The circuit court concluded that Neighbors lacked standing to challenge the Board's decision and dismissed the case on that basis. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the allegations made by Neighbors were sufficient to establish that they had standing. View "Anders Larsen Trust v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County" on Justia Law

In this personal injury case, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sustaining Defendant's plea in bar and dismissing this case with prejudice, holding that the date of Plaintiff's second filing did not relate back to the date of her first filing and was therefore barred by the statute of limitations.After Plaintiff learned that she had erred in naming Defendant in her initial pleading Plaintiff non-suited the case. One month later, Plaintiff filed the present action, correctly naming Defendant. Defendant filed a plea in bar, arguing that the present action was filed over two years after the cause of action accrued and was thus time-barred. Plaintiff objected, arguing that the error in naming Defendant was a misnomer subject to correction. The court sustained the plea in bar, concluding that Plaintiff's original filing did not relate back to the date of the original filing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's second filing was barred by the statute of limitations. View "Edwards v. Omni International Services, Inc." on Justia Law