Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Supreme Court of Virginia · Born 1949
Livingston v. Virginia Dept. of Transp.
Supreme Court of Virginia · 2012-06-07 · cited 18×
In Livingston v. Virginia Dept. of Transp., homeowners in Fairfax County's Huntington subdivision sued the County and VDOT for inverse condemnation under Article I, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution after their homes flooded during a 2006 storm. The plaintiffs alleged that VDOT's 1960s relocation and narrowing of Cameron Run, construction of the Capital Beltway as a berm blocking northern flow, and subsequent failure to dredge accumulated sediment caused or worsened the flooding that damaged their properties. The circuit court dismissed the suit on demurrer, ruling that a single flooding event could not support an inverse condemnation claim. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged that the damage resulted from the exercise of eminent domain powers for public use, which can support such a constitutional claim even from one occurrence.
property
Gleason v. Com.
Supreme Court of Virginia · 2012-06-07
The case involved Robert Charles Gleason, Jr., who pled guilty to two counts of capital murder for killing fellow inmates Harvey Watson and Aaron Cooper while incarcerated in Virginia prisons. Gleason received death sentences in both cases after the circuit court found the aggravating factors of vileness and future dangerousness, and he waived his right to appeal. Although the defendant waived his appeals, Virginia law required the Supreme Court to review the sentences for whether they were imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, and whether they were excessive or disproportionate to penalties in similar cases. The Court found no evidence of improper influence in the proceedings and, after comparing the crimes and defendant to prior capital cases involving inmate murders, multiple killings within three years, and ligature strangulation, concluded that the death sentences were neither excessive nor disproportionate.
criminal law
Burns v. Gagnon
Supreme Court of Virginia · 2012-04-20 · cited 59×
This case arose from a personal injury lawsuit filed by a Gloucester High School student injured in a fight on school grounds after an assistant principal received but did not act on a report warning of the impending fight. The plaintiff sued the other student, a third student who encouraged the fight, and the assistant principal for simple and gross negligence as well as assault and battery; a jury awarded $5 million in damages, but the trial court declined to impose joint and several liability. The Supreme Court of Virginia granted appeals to address whether the assistant principal owed a duty, whether sovereign immunity applied, the sufficiency of evidence for a gross negligence instruction, the admissibility of deposition testimony, and joint and several liability between intentional and negligent tortfeasors. The court reversed in part and remanded for a new trial, holding that the assistant principal owed a duty but was protected by sovereign immunity from the simple negligence claim while allowing the gross negligence claim to proceed to retrial.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Wyatt v. McDermott
Supreme Court of Virginia · 2012-04-20 · cited 25×
The case arose from a federal district court action in which biological father John Wyatt sued various parties, including an attorney and adoption agency, for their alleged role in facilitating the unauthorized adoption of his infant daughter E.Z. without his knowledge or consent, despite his plans to raise the child with the mother. The district court certified questions to the Virginia Supreme Court asking whether Virginia recognizes a tort of intentional interference with parental rights and, if so, what elements define the claim. The court held that Virginia does recognize such a cause of action, drawing on common-law principles protecting parental rights, the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and the approaches of other jurisdictions, while identifying the elements as knowledge of the parental relationship, intentional interference without justification, and resulting harm to the parent's custodial rights. The majority reasoned that recognizing the tort advances important public policies favoring the stability of family relationships and the rights of parents, leaving the precise contours of liability to future case development rather than legislative action.
family lawtorts & liability
CATTANO v. Bragg
Supreme Court of Virginia · 2012-04-20 · cited 6×
This case involved a dispute between the two attorney shareholders of a professional corporation law firm, where the minority shareholder sued individually for judicial dissolution, inspection of records, and breach of contract, and derivatively for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty after the majority shareholder allegedly misused corporate funds and denied access to records. The circuit court overruled challenges to the minority shareholder's standing to pursue derivative claims under Code § 13.1-672.1, appointed a receiver for an accounting, and entered judgment awarding damages on the derivative conversion claim plus attorneys' fees. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the minority shareholder had standing because she could fairly and adequately represent the corporation's interests despite also seeking dissolution, and affirmed the award of attorneys' fees and costs related to the successful derivative claim and the records inspection request. The core reasoning focused on the statutory requirements for derivative standing and fee awards under the Virginia Stock Corporation Act, concluding that simultaneous pursuit of dissolution did not automatically disqualify the plaintiff and that the litigation produced a substantial benefit to the corporation.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Christian v. STATE CORP. COM'N
Supreme Court of Virginia · 2011-11-04 · cited 10×
The case involved George Christian's requests to the Virginia State Corporation Commission for certain employee and payment records under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The SCC responded that the VFOIA did not apply to it but provided limited responsive information after Christian filed a petition. The SCC dismissed the petition, finding no live controversy after the production of documents. On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the VFOIA is inapplicable to the SCC because its enforcement provisions are unconstitutional as applied to the Commission under prior precedent, and the legislature has not amended the statute to provide an enforceable mechanism against the SCC.
procedurebusiness & regulatory