Supreme Court of Virginia

The Court of Appeals' finding that the probationer's internet restrictions violated the First Amendment was reversed. The majority held that the conditional internet ban, which required prior approval and monitoring software, is a permissible probation condition and that the trial court's revocation of the suspended…

The Supreme Court of Virginia held that Premier Homes Group's counterclaim did not comply with Rule 3:25(b) because its demand for attorney fees did not affirmatively identify the basis for recovery — it neither cited Section 8(b) of the subcontracts nor mentioned the subcontracts at all.

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed a three-judge circuit court's order suspending attorney Phillip Ben-Zion Leiser's license for three years for violating RPC 8.2 and RPC 8.4(b) by making false or reckless attacks on the integrity of Virginia judges in filings on behalf of two clients.

The Court held that the City was immune from Shree Arihant’s common-law and statutory tort claims and most of its declaratory-judgment requests because the controlled burn was at least partly a governmental act of blight abatement.

The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that a county that imposes a license tax under Code § 58.1‑3712(A) must still assess the fair market value of mineral lands, including the reserves, under all three subdivisions of Code § 58.1‑3286.

The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the General Assembly’s process for advancing a proposed constitutional amendment authorizing partisan gerrymandering violated the intervening‑election requirement of Article XII, Section 1, rendering the referendum void and leaving the 2021 congressional maps in effect.

The Supreme Court of Virginia answered the certified question presented by the Fourth Circuit, holding that a nonmandatory reporter who makes a good‑faith complaint of suspected child abuse to law enforcement without first contacting a Department of Social Services employee is not entitled to immunity under Virginia…

The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the trial court’s sentencing order did not violate Code § 19.2‑303 and therefore was not void, and reinstated the sentence. The Court declined to address whether the order was void ab initio versus voidable because it found no error.

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the three‑judge circuit court’s finding that attorney Joseph Willis Lee, III violated Disciplinary Rule 3.8(d) by knowingly withholding exculpatory evidence, rejecting Lee’s arguments that the State Bar subcommittee’s certification was tainted by improper notice and that the…

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the biological mother’s consent was not required for the stepmother’s adoption of J.H. because the mother neither visited nor contacted the child for more than six months and that lack of contact was without just cause.

The Supreme Court of Virginia granted the petition for review, held that Code § 8.01-626 permits appellate review of the TRO because it functions as a de facto preliminary injunction, and stayed the TRO pending further order.

The Court held that CRMG does not automatically inherit the Authority’s sovereign immunity merely because it is the Authority’s subsidiary. Whether CRMG may share the Authority’s immunity must be determined from the circumstances of its corporate relationship and operations, using the James framework as a starting…

The Supreme Court of Virginia defined the standard for “evident partiality” under the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act, holding that a party must show that a reasonable person would find the arbitrator’s conduct obviously biased.

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the State Corporation Commission’s approvals of certificates of public convenience and necessity for VEPCO’s Aspen‑Golden and Apollo‑Twin Creeks transmission projects, finding the Commission correctly verified the need, properly rejected underground construction, adequately…

The Supreme Court of Virginia held that sovereign immunity is a component of subject‑matter jurisdiction that is determined at the time a suit is filed. Because the General Assembly repealed the waiver of sovereign immunity before the plaintiffs filed their overtime claim, the trial court lacked jurisdiction and the…

The court held that the six-month repose period in Code § 63.2-1216 bars any direct or collateral attack on a final adoption order, including challenges based on procedural defects, fraud, voidness, or lack of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the lower courts that Keil has no remedy under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, but reversed the Court of Appeals on his claim under the Government Data Act, holding that he is a data subject entitled to the internal‑affairs records, and remanded for an in‑camera review…

The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment concerning a jury verdict in favor of Appian on its trade-secret claims against Pegasystems. It held that the evidence was sufficient to support misappropriation, but that the circuit court improperly shifted the damages burden to Pega, restricted Pega's damages…

The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the wage‑theft statute, Code § 40.1‑29, does not cover commissions, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the trial court’s judgment. The Court based its decision on a plain‑meaning analysis of the statutory language and legislative intent.

The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

The Court held that Hollis's Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act claim accrued when she was removed from the work schedule in March 2021, because that act was an employment-related retaliatory action causing at least slight injury.

The Court dismissed Hargrove’s petition for a writ of actual innocence because the newly obtained DNA results, considered with the trial record, did not establish that every rational factfinder would have acquitted him.

The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding the probationer willfully violated his probation by failing to pay court costs, and therefore reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, entering judgment for the Commonwealth.

The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the City of Chesapeake is immune from negligence liability because trash collection is a governmental function, but affirmed that the city trash‑truck driver is not immune because he was engaged in ordinary driving at the time of the collision.

The Court affirmed dismissal of Doe's claims as barred by the statute of limitations. It held that Doe waived her reliance on Code § 8.01-1 by raising it for the first time in a reply brief, that the constitutional provision authorizing retroactive accrual legislation did not itself require retroactive application of…

The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the circuit court did not improperly punish David Michael Jackson for pleading not guilty to technical probation violations. The court distinguished an impermissible penalty for exercising trial rights from permissible consideration of a probationer's present failure to accept…

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the three‑judge disciplinary panel’s findings that attorney Bradley G. Pollack violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.1(a) and 8.4(b)‑(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and upheld the revocation of his law license.

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s decision overruling the appellants’ demurrers to a defamation complaint, holding that the defendants are not protected by legislative, sovereign, or statutory immunity.

The Court held that the evidence personally observed by the circuit court did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Orndoff was voluntarily intoxicated while testifying, as required to support summary criminal contempt.

The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the officers’ retrieval of cocaine from Hubbard’s underwear was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the trial court properly denied suppression.

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the three‑judge circuit court’s judgment that attorney Jason Swango violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(a) by charging non‑refundable consultation fees that were advanced legal fees, and violated Rule 1.15(a)(1) by depositing those unearned fees in his operating account.

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the State Corporation Commission’s denial of a toll increase, holding that the Commission correctly applied the statutory criteria and that the denial does not constitute an uncompensated taking under the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the circuit court did not err in admitting an unsigned release to prove the contents of an illegible liability‑release contract because the parol evidence rule did not apply, the burden of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial…

The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the circuit court’s judgment that the denial of a jury instruction on a good‑faith claim‑of‑right defense was not an abuse of discretion because no more than a scintilla of evidence supported the defense.

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that Virginia law does not recognize the doctrine of adequate assurance and therefore the trial court did not err in refusing the proffered jury instruction on that doctrine.

The Court held that any error in admitting Paxton’s statements made after he invoked his right to remain silent was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Applying the relevant harmless-error factors, it concluded that the statements had limited importance and that the physical and forensic evidence independently…

The Supreme Court of Virginia held that Code § 56-16.3, as applied, authorizes a private broadband provider to take railroad property for a nonpublic use, violating Article I, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution, and applied de novo review to the constitutional challenge, reversing the Commission’s judgment and…

The Supreme Court of Virginia held that Virginia Code § 22.1‑194 does not waive sovereign immunity for alleged degrading acts that occurred on a school bus because the bus was not a "vehicle involved in an accident," and affirmed that the waiver requires both vehicle involvement and insurance coverage.

The Court rejected the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the intent to permanently separate under Code § 20-91(A)(9) need exist only when the separation begins. It held that the intent must predominate throughout the statutory separation period, although it may be inferred from the facts and need not be free from…

The court affirmed Shaw’s conviction for maliciously concealing a dead body, but it did so on harmless-error grounds rather than deciding whether the trial court properly excluded his mental-condition expert.