Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court refusing to implement the decision of the grievance panel to reinstate Petitioner to her position as an employee for the City of Norfolk, holding that the circuit court erred in refusing to implement the grievance panel's decision.After holding a hearing regarding Petitioner's termination the grievance panel decided to reinstate Petitioner and award her backpay. When the City Manager declined to implement the panel's decision Petitioner brought this action. The circuit court ruled that it would not enforce the panel's decision because it was against public policy. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred when it failed to implement the panel's binding decision and reinstate Petitioner. View "LaRock v. City of Norfolk" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the circuit court upholding the State Health Commissioner's denial of Chesapeake Regional Medical Center's (CMRC) application for a Certificate of Public Need, holding that the harmless error doctrine does not apply to an error of law in an administrative agency case under the Virginia Administrative Process Act.CMRC applied for a new open-heart surgery service and additional cardiac catheterization equipment. The Commissioner denied the application. CRMC appealed, contending that the Commissioner erred in his interpretation of the relevant administrative regulation. The circuit court affirmed, determining that the Commissioner's incorrect interpretation and application of the regulation was harmless error. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in applying the harmless error doctrine to the agency's legal error in interpreting and applying its own regulations; and (2) the lower courts erred by failing to remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. View "Chesapeake Hospital Authority v. State Health Commissioner" on Justia Law

In this action challenging the Supreme Court's sealing of the record of the disciplinary action against Judge Adrianne L. Bennett by the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission the Supreme Court unsealed certain filings in the case but concluded that the Commission's records attached to a mandamus petition should remain under seal.At issue was the order of the Supreme Court disposing of Judge Bennett's petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition in connection with this matter, which the Supreme Court ordered sealed along with all other documents of the proceedings. The publisher of a news entity asked the Supreme Court to unseal the order sealing the proceedings regarding Judge Bennett's mandamus petition and filed a petition to vacate the sealing order. The Supreme Court unsealed the remainder of the filings in this case but held that the records of the Commission attached to the mandamus petition should remain under seal, holding that Judge Bennett had a statutory right to keep that information confidential. View "In re Honorable Bennett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act, Va. Code 8.01-581.01 to -.016 (VUAA), and the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1-16 (FAA), do not compel enforcement of an arbitration clause in a trust.The decedent created an inter vivos irrevocable trust that was divided into three shares for his children and grandchildren. The trust contained an unambiguous arbitration clause. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, the trust's trustee, alleging breach of duty. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a trust is neither a contract nor an agreement that can be enforced against a beneficiary; and (2) therefore, neither the VUAA nor the FAA compel arbitration. View "Boyle v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court ruling that an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) was covered under a homeowner's insurance policy as a "farm type vehicle," holding that the circuit court erred.Diamond Jones was injured while riding as a passenger on the back of an ATV driven by the daughter of Jennifer and Richard Rekowski. Jones filed a negligence action against the Rekowskis, who were insured by a homeowner's policy issued by Erie Insurance Exchange, and then filed this action seeking a judgment that Erie was obligated to pay the insurance claim. The circuit court concluded that the policy covered the accident. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the ATV involved in the accident was not a "farm type" vehicle; and (2) therefore, the ATV was excluded from coverage by the homeowner's insurance policy. View "Erie Insurance Exchange v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the latest decision of the trial court in this third appeal addressing remaining contests between the parties in this case, holding that the trial court erred in part.World Telecom Exchange Communications, LLC, a wholly owned American subsidiary of a Dubai parent company, sued Yacoub Sidya, alleging tortious interference with a business expectancy, misappropriation of protected trade secrets, and civil conspiracy. On two prior occasions the case was before the Supreme Court, which reversed in part the rulings at issue and remanded the cause. In this latest appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no error or abuse of discretion in the trial court's partial final judgment; (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to strike the evidence in support of a claim for attorney fees; and (3) the trial court erred in awarding post-judgment interest on the punitive and treble damages. View "Sidya v. World Telecom Exchange Communications, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in this interlocutory appeal of a decision of the circuit court overruling Appellants' demurrer and allowing Appellees to proceed with their claims, holding that the circuit court erred.Appellees brought this action against Margaret's Future Trust, the Estate of Walter, Jr. and another trust seeking an accounting of each party's assets, restitution, and the imposition of a constructive construct on the trusts' assets based on Walter, Jr.'s alleged fraudulent conduct and breach of fiduciary duty as trustee of Walter, Sr.'s and Margaret's estates. The circuit court subsequently allowed Appellees to amend their complaint to add claims relating to the arms-length sale by their mother, Margaret, of her minority interest in Hurley, LLC, in 2006 and to joint the relevant members of Hurley, LLC as defendants. In this interlocutory appeal, Appellants argued that the circuit court improperly conferred standing on Appellees to pursue claims challenging and seeking to "unwind" the 2006 Hurley Transaction. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision on these issues, dismissed Appellees' claims relating to the Hurley Transaction, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that Appellees lacked standing to bring the claims regarding the Hurley Transaction. View "Kittrell v. Fowler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing an action brought by a condominium association against the owner of two condominium units for unpaid special assessments, holding that the circuit court erred by granting the condominium owner's plea in bar.The association brought suit seeking a nonjudicial foreclosure on liens recorded against the owner's condominium units and damages for breach of a declaration. The owner filed a plea in bar asserting that the claim could not survive either of two potential statutes of limitation. The circuit court granted the plea in bar, concluding that the action was barred by the thirty-six-month statute of limitations in former Va. Code 55-79.84(D). The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order, holding that the circuit court erred in ruling that the association's failure to introduce the declaration into evidence at an ore tenus hearing precluded the court from deciding whether to grant or deny the plea in bar. View "California Condominium Ass'n v. Peterson" on Justia Law