Glen A. Huff

Judge, Court of Appeals of Virginia

JD, Franklin Pierce University

Affiliations

On the bench with

⚖️ Robert P. Frank ⚖️ Teresa M. Chafin ⚖️ Stephen R. McCullough ⚖️ Rossie D. Alston jr ⚖️ Walter S. Felton jr ⚖️ Robert J. Humphreys

Decision record

Newest first · every case links to the full record

O'Neil v. O'Neil
Court of Appeals of Virginia · 2012-05-01 · cited 3×
In O'Neil v. O'Neil, the case involved a dispute over jurisdiction to modify a spousal support order originally entered by a Virginia circuit court in 2005 as part of a divorce decree, which had transferred related matters to a local JDR court. After the JDR court denied the husband's 2010 motion to amend support, he appealed to the circuit court; that court then transferred the appeal on its own motion to a Louisiana district court where both parties resided, invoking forum non conveniens. The Virginia Court of Appeals reversed the transfer and remanded the case, holding that Code § 20-88.43:2 of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act gave the issuing Virginia court continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the spousal support order for its entire duration. The court reasoned that this specific UIFSA provision, which aims to avoid interstate conflicts by keeping modification authority with the original tribunal, controls over the general forum non conveniens statute in Code § 8.01-265.
family lawprocedure
Muse Construction Group, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia Board for Contractors
Court of Appeals of Virginia · 2012-05-01 · cited 4×
In Muse Construction Group, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia Board for Contractors, a contractor appealed the Virginia Board for Contractors' revocation of its license to the circuit court after an investigation into alleged violations on a home-building contract. The circuit court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the company's certified-mail delivery of its petition to the Board's secretary did not satisfy the 30-day service requirement under Rule 2A:4. The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed and remanded, holding that the service was proper. It reasoned that the 2006 amendment to Rule 2A:4 requires only service "as in a civil action" rather than the stricter formal process (such as a process server) previously needed to initiate a new equity proceeding, so timely certified-mail receipt by the secretary met the rule.
business & regulatoryprocedure
National College of Business & Technology, Inc. v. Malveaux
Court of Appeals of Virginia · 2012-04-03 · cited 1×
The Court of Appeals of Virginia considered an appeal by National College of Business and Technology from a circuit court order classifying two asbestos-related violations at the college’s Salem campus as “other than serious,” rather than “de minimis,” with no penalties. The violations arose from a 2004 VOSH inspection that found damaged asbestos-containing pipe insulation in a boiler room accessible to employees and cited the college for failing to determine the quantities of asbestos material present and for not posting required warning signs. The court affirmed the circuit court’s classification, holding that the record contained sufficient credible evidence of a direct relationship between employee exposure to amosite and chrysotile asbestos and occupational health risks, including mesothelioma, cancer, and asbestosis, as supported by laboratory analysis of insulation samples and testimony from the compliance officer.
business & regulatorylabor & employment
Baker v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia · 2011-11-29 · cited 16×
In Baker v. Commonwealth, the defendant, a convicted felon, was tried and convicted in a bench trial on three separate counts of possessing a firearm in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2 after he stole a gun, kept it for about two weeks, showed it to others, and then sold it. He conceded the underlying facts of the theft and possession but argued on appeal that the trial court should have convicted him of only one count because it involved a single firearm over a continuous period. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the three convictions. The court reasoned that the statute's use of the term "occasion" defines each distinct unit of time or occurrence of possession as a separate violation, consistent with prior interpretations that the legislature had not overturned through later amendments, and that the evidence showed three distinguishable incidents of dominion and control over the firearm.
criminal lawguns

Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.

JD, Franklin Pierce University →JD, Franklin Pierce University