Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

In a groundbreaking decision, the Virginia Supreme Court reinstated a high-profile lawsuit, thrusting into the spotlight a pivotal battle over a teacher's fundamental rights. Peter Vlaming, a dedicated French teacher with nearly seven years of service, found himself at the center of a controversial firestorm. Represented by the powerhouse legal team from Alliance Defending Freedom, Vlaming's case challenges the very core of Virginia law.The West Point School Board's decision to terminate Vlaming sent shockwaves through the community. At the heart of this contentious saga is Vlaming's staunch refusal to use personal pronouns for a student that contradicted the student's biological sex, a decision he defended as a matter of conscience. Despite his efforts to respect the student by using their chosen name and skillfully avoiding pronoun usage, school authorities imposed a stringent directive. They demanded he adhere to the superintendent's order to use pronouns aligning with the student's gender identity, not their sex, sparking a fierce debate over rights, respect, and personal beliefs.This is the oral argument before the Supreme Court of Virginia in that case.This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law.Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there's a problem: The insurance company doesn't believe you. “You can't be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you're fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don't have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

What if the car parked for months in your neighborhood could spark a riveting legal battle? Well, brace yourself as we journey through the intricate case of Bryant McCants versus CDMPB Enterprises LLC in our latest podcast episode. We dissect the multifaceted arguments surrounding the controversial conversion of an abandoned Mustang vehicle, unmasking potential missteps in the court of appeals' analysis. From the intricate layers of the Mako franchisee company's ownership to the evidence that underpinned the jury's verdict, we leave no stone unturned. Are you ready to question everything you know about abandoned vehicles and liability? Buckle up, because in the second half, we ignite an intriguing conversation on how agency law and jury instructions shape the determination of liability, especially when a vehicle is claimed to be abandoned. We shine a spotlight on the defendant's actions versus the company's role, putting the concept of possession under the microscope. We round off with a fiery debate about the interpretation of the abandoned vehicle statute. Is it too aggressive? Does consent need to be communicated? Prepare to have your perspective broadened and your legal curiosity piqued. Tune in, and let's navigate these captivating legal mazes together!This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law.Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there's a problem: The insurance company doesn't believe you. “You can't be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you're fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don't have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

Are you ready to unlock the mysteries surrounding revocation proceedings and the concept of affirmative election? This episode promises to arm you with legal insights and court interpretations drawn from the case of Commonwealth of Virginia v. DeLon. We dissect whether the violation conduct that occurred prior to the effective date of the statute should apply and if the preparation of sentencing guidelines qualifies as an affirmative election. You'll discover a fascinating twist: a failure to object does not necessarily amount to consent - an eye-opener in itself.Join us as we chart through the ambiguities of statutory interpretation, especially in probation violation cases. We spotlight the case of Emily DeLon, accused of violating a special condition of remaining drug-free while on probation. We delve into the Court of Appeals' decision and subject matter jurisdiction to the special condition. We debate the intricate power and discretion of trial courts in imposing special conditions and probe the grey area where technical violations are masked as special conditions to sidestep limitations.Get ready for a fiery debate with our lawyer guest who challenges our interpretation of a conversation between a trial court judge and a prosecutor, contesting the presence of consent for retroactive sentencing. We extend our discussion to the prosecutor's role in determining the punishment scheme and the fine line that separates special conditions from technical violations. You'll gain insights into how courts use their discretion within legislative limitations. This episode is not just a podcast, it is a journey into the heart of litigation, an invaluable resource for those intrigued by the nuances of technical violations and the prosecutor's pivotal role in punishment schemes.This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law.Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there's a problem: The insurance company doesn't believe you. “You can't be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you're fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don't have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

Imagine being a part of an intense courtroom drama. Today, you'll be stepping into the shoes of legal giants, as we explore the intriguing case of Swinson v. Commonwealth. Our conversation zooms in on the concept of harmless error in criminal cases, and the ripple effect it may have on the jury verdict. Often, it's the weight of the evidence and the impact of jury instructions that shape the final outcome. Let's take a journey into the heart of this legal spectacle.We'll also take you behind the scenes of a captivating dialogue between Zagorski and Stalard. They represent the defense and Commonwealth respectively, and their insights on jury instruction in a case involving drug distribution are nothing short of enlightening. Together, we'll probe into the differences between the Commonwealth's and defense's approach, the role of the seemingly harmless error, and how something as simple as the presence or absence of a pager can contribute to the case's narrative.As we draw the curtains on this episode, let's delve into the heart of jury instructions and the careful consideration behind them. From the relevance of expert testimony to the debate on retiring certain factors due to modernization, our discussion leaves no stone unturned. We cast a spotlight on the fact finder's role in weighing these factors, and the potential harm of excluding relevant information from the instructions. Tune in as we dissect this grand courtroom drama and reveal the intricacies of the justice system. It's an episode you won't want to miss! P.S Don't forget to check out other podcasts by Ben Glass - The Court of Appeals of Virginia podcast and the Renegade Lawyer podcast. It's a law enthusiast's paradise!This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law.Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there's a problem: The insurance company doesn't believe you. “You can't be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you're fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don't have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

Have you ever wondered how a criminal case unravels, particularly when it comes to identification evidence? Step into the corridors of justice as we dissect the fascinating case of Sample v. Commonwealth of Virginia, where the spotlight is on the process of victim identification. We prod the underbelly of the judicial system, scrutinizing the identification procedure in question and how certainty, influence, and courage all play pivotal roles in the ultimate verdict.The conversation doesn't stop there. We dive deeper into the murky waters of criminal investigations and how law enforcement procedures can potentially sway a victim's identification. Unraveling a case where a seemingly innocuous comment by an officer could have tilted the scales of justice. We pull back the curtain on the role race can play in the identification process and the magnitude of its impact on the eventual verdict. Arm yourself with insights into the delicate intricacies of law enforcement, race, and identification.As we reach the climax of our discourse, we turn our gaze to the larger components of a criminal case. We explore the court of appeals' dissection of the five-factors from the Bigger decision, the sufficiency of evidence, and the potential for overturning precedent cases imposing an unjust burden of analysis. The debate on the integration of trial evidence into a pre-trial motion to suppress will keep you on your toes as we cite from past cases. Engage with us in this stimulating journey through the labyrinth that is the justice system, as we dissect, discuss, and evaluate. Don't miss this riveting exploration of the role of identification evidence in criminal cases.This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law.Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there's a problem: The insurance company doesn't believe you. “You can't be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you're fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don't have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

Ever wondered how the concept of alibi defense can shape the outcome of a sexual abuse case? Prepare to go on an intellectual journey as the attorneys and court  dissect a case where the defense claims a broad timeframe of charges doesn't sync with the evidence. The argument reaches to  the meaning of alibi, its spatial aspect, and how to categorize the evidence—is it alibi or impeachment? What obligation did the defendant have to provide a notice of alibi? Could trial counsel have submitted a notice of alibi, given that the record evidence fails to establish the time and place of the offense?Was it an abuse of discretion to keep evidence from the jury, and if such an action stemmed from intentional violation or honest oversight?This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law.Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there's a problem: The insurance company doesn't believe you. “You can't be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you're fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don't have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

Fasten your seatbelts as the court and counsel zoom into the nitty-gritty of Rule 3A15, exploring its relevance to double jeopardy principles. They ponder on the common law that forbids a judge from reconsidering a motion to strike, scrutinizing its boundaries and applications. The journey gets more twisted as the parties explore the question of the detrimental reliance of the oral ruling and the constitutional argument  that suggests states can draw the line earlier. .The arguments conclude with a powerful argument from the Commonwealth urging the court to overrule the decision of the Court of Appeals. So, are you ready to dive in and challenge your understanding of legal principles?This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law.Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there's a problem: The insurance company doesn't believe you. “You can't be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you're fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don't have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

Could a grandmother who foots the bill for her grandchild's medical expenses in the wake of a crime be the rightful recipient of restitution? Join us as attorneys and the Supreme Court of Virginia unravel the legal labyrinth in the Commonwealth vs. Puckett case, with insights from legal experts Jordan Minot and Graham Bryant. The arguments navigate the murky waters of legal definitions, reevaluating the concept of a 'victim' with broader implications, and questioning whether indirect financial casualties of crime should be eligible for restitution.Diving deeper, the parties toss around the broader interpretation of 'incur' in relation to medical expenses and restitution. They pull examples from the AV Automotive, the State Farm, and the Bowers decisions to provide a diverse, contextual understanding. Ponder with us, as they delve into the potential ramifications of a volunteer bearing medical costs and whether such interpretation of 'incur' aligns with the canon of construction for restitution statutes.Lastly, the arguments dissect the statutory structure of restitution in Virginia, a state which offers broad discretion in restitution awards and commands restitution in certain circumstances. As they wrap up, they reflect on the broader implications of such definitions of 'victim' and 'incur' in the restitution context. They also discuss how the General Assembly might have incorporated qualifying language into the statute and whether the statute, in its current form, still fulfills the objectives of restitution. Join us for this enlightening conversation, offering a fresh perspective on restitution for medical expenses in crimes.This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law.Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there's a problem: The insurance company doesn't believe you. “You can't be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you're fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don't have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

The case involves the validity of a lien and the distribution of funds related to a property sale. The Caldwell Trust had a lien on the property, which was subject to a tax lien by the City of Richmond. The Caldwell Trust argues that the judgment lien is an interest in property rights, protected under both the US Constitution and the Virginia Constitution.The City of Richmond argues that the Caldwell Trust's lien is subordinate to the tax lien and the deed of trust, which must be satisfied first. The trial court found that the deed of trust had a lien of $14,000, which the Caldwell Trust does not challenge. The Caldwell Trust argues that the City of Richmond cannot keep the $14,000, as it is not entitled to it. The City of Richmond argues that it can keep the money if the first lien holder does not show up within two years, according to a statute. The Caldwell Trust argues that the statute is problematic and violates property rights. A writ was granted on the following issues: The Trial Court erroneously ruled that Appellant's lien claim established under Va. Code § 58.1-3967 to the net tax sale proceeds to be distributed after payment in full of the City of Richmond's statutory tax lien is not a constitutionally protected private property interest in the Disputed Tax Sale Proceeds. The Trial Court erroneously failed to rule that the provisions of Va. Code § 58.1-3967 granting the City of Richmond the right to the Disputed Tax Sale Proceeds remaining after satisfaction of all obligations due the City of Richmond under its statutory tax lien was an unconstitutional taking of the Caldwell Trust's property right in the Disputed Tax Sale Proceeds without just compensation under the United States and Virginia Constitutions.

The ACLU of Virginia filed Prease v. Clarke in the Virginia Supreme Court, challenging the continued incarceration of Steven Prease and advocating for his immediate release from the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC). The case focuses on the interpretation of a law that expanded Virginia's earned sentence credit program, with the petition arguing that Mr. Prease had been unfairly denied the increased credits.Since its establishment in 1995, Virginia's earned sentence credit program has offered the possibility of early release for most incarcerated individuals. In 2020, the program underwent an expansion when the Virginia General Assembly passed a law that increased the number of credits individuals could earn. This legislative change was expected to benefit thousands of people currently serving time.UPDATE: July 7,2023, The Supreme Court of Virginia has ordered the release. https://www.wric.com/news/virginia-news/virginia-supreme-court-orders-release-of-steven-prease-who-challenged-earned-sentence-credit-rollback/   

The defendant challenged the admissibility of an in-court identification of him. Here's what the lower court (Court of Appeals) said: In the vast majority of contested criminal trials, a witness will take the stand and testify under oath that the defendant, who is present in the courtroom, is the person who committed the crime. It happens routinely in trials conducted in the courts of the Commonwealth and has happened for as long as there have been such trials and courts. Despite the fact such a question and answer in the course of a criminal trial was a common occurrence when the Virginia Declaration of Rights was adopted in 1776, when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, and when every subsequent version of the Virginia Constitution has been ratified, Walker contends that such questions and answers potentially offend the due process protections enshrined in each of the referenced documents.

Deluca v. the Commonwealth. The Court does not seem to be buying the argument that when your lawyer takes the stand to testify about his conversations with you when you are attempting to withdraw your guilty plea because "you didn't understand everything" that this is a 6th Amendment violation of your right to counsel.  This Supreme Court of Virginia podcast is brought to you by BenGlassLaw, area leaders in personal injury and long term disability insurance claims. 

An appeal of sanctions issued in a shareholder derivative suit. How can courts (and lawyers) still be messing up the 21 day "final order" rule in Virginia? Second issue. If the appellate bond for costs is given in the form of a check to the Clerk of the Court, is that good enough? And in who's name is the appeal taken?

In this case the principal issue is whether the City had to turn over all documents that it considered before firing a firefighter. Assignments of Error 1. The circuit court erred in granting a writ of mandamus by order on July 23rd, 2021, requiring the City to provide all relevant records requested by a grievant prior to a final grievance hearing, because a writ of mandamus was not an appropriate remedy in this matter. 2. The circuit court erred in its statutory interpretation of Virginia Code § 15.2-1507(A)(10)(b)(3) by holding by order on July 23rd, 2021, that the statute creates a ministerial duty for a locality to provide to a grievant any relevant records requested by the grievant prior to a final grievance hearing as such interpretation and subsequent ruling goes beyond the plain language of the statute. The Supreme Court of Virginia podcast is a production of BenGlassLaw, a personal injury and disability law firm headquartered in Fairfax Virginia. The podcast uses recordings that are in the public domain, edited "lightly" for the elimination of filler words and long pauses.

A Suffolk Circuit Court judge ruled that the Suffolk School Board violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying Dr. Deborah Wahlstrom access to an open meeting.   Judge Matthew A. Glassman ruled that the School Board violated the open meeting requirements as set forth under FOIA when Wahlstrom was not allowed to view a school board's retreat from inside the meeting room at the College and Career Academy at Pruden, where it was held. Glassman, however, ruled that neither Brooks-Buck nor Gordon should be held liable, as he said it was not a “willful and knowing” violation. He ruled that the board must, in the future, design retreats to allow for public access in the meeting room itself. A future hearing date is to be set for the possible award of attorney fees.  Read the Suffolk Times Herald Article here. UPDATE: 04/27/2023 In the plaintiff's action alleging that a city School Board and two school officials violated the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (“VFOIA”), Code § 2.2-3700 et seq., by denying her free entry to a public meeting of the Board, the trial court did not err in awarding relief to the plaintiff because the Board violated the statute, or in denying her claims against the individual defendants. The case is remanded for determination of the fees and costs she is entitled to recover since she substantially prevailed in the suit. The opinion is here.  The Supreme Court of Virginia podcast is a production of BenGlassLaw, a personal injury and disability law firm headquartered in Fairfax Virginia. The podcast uses recordings that are in the public domain, edited "lightly" for the elimination of filler words and long pauses.

Under Virginia's Lemon Law statute, a vehicle manufacturer has the opportunity to cure an alleged "lemon." The issue, in this case, is whether, once the dealer does "cure" prior to a lawsuit being filed, the plaintiff can never the less recover his attorney fees. Suit was filed and dismissed and this is an appeal of that dismissal.  The Supreme Court of Virginia podcast is a production of BenGlassLaw, a personal injury and disability law firm headquartered in Fairfax Virginia. The podcast uses recordings that are in the public domain, edited "lightly" for the elimination of filler words and long pauses. OPINION. On April 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of Virginia upheld the trial court's ruling that attorney fees cannot be recovered in this situation. 

What happens when a lawyer in a Virginia divorce case in which adultery may be an issue enters into a sexual relationship with his female client while the divorce proceedings are ongoing? In this case, the lawyer withdrew from the case and, according to the arguments here, left his client without an attorney. He was reprimanded by the Virginia State Bar and in this hearing before the Supreme Court of Virginia, appeals that reprimand. The Supreme Court of Virginia podcast is a production of BenGlassLaw, a personal injury and disability law firm headquartered in Fairfax Virginia. The podcast uses recordings that are in the public domain, edited "lightly" for the elimination of filler words and long pauses. Ruling: no surprise here.  In an appeal of right from an attorney disciplinary proceeding before a three judge panel, the circuit court's finding that this lawyer violated Rule 1.7(a)(2) by engaging in sexual relations with his divorce client during the representation is supported by the record, and the finding that he added a fault ground for divorce against his client, as well as other findings of fact with which the lawyer takes issue, are likewise supported by the record. You can read the opinion here.  

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case CONRAD BURKE v. STANLEY YOUNG, ET AL. (Record Number 200095) From The Circuit court of Tazewell County; R. Patterson, Judge. Counsel Conrad Burke, pro se, for appellant. Ann-Marie Catherine White (Office of the Attorney General) for appellees. Assignments of Error 1. The circuit court erred in holding that there are and were no genuine facts in dispute when there clearly is a genuine dispute of facts for a jury to decide the outcome of this matter yet this Honorable Court of Tazewell County granted the defendant summary judgment in this case which was in direct conflict with procedures and relevant law of the Virginia state judicial system. 2. The circuit court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing to review camera footage which would have further bolstered the appellant’s claims and furthering the fact to which the evidence would show that the defendants are not and were not eligible for summary judgment due to the improperly applied restraints causing the appellant further suffering due to the fact that Burke was not able to drink water, eat or to be able to relieve himself, unassisted for a long period of time with NO breaks to do so. 3. The circuit court erred by not considering evidence and medical records to which material facts arose due to numbness in feet and hands from the improperly placed restraints and no foot coverings on a cold concrete floor for an excessive amount of time. The court also erred due to the fact that Burke was stripped naked with only his underwear in a very cold cell for an excessive amount of time. This information was put in an affidavit to the trial court which did in fact give more genuine facts in this case for a jury to decide. 6. The circuit court erred by granting summary judgment stating, “the restraints were properly applied and the situation warranted the use of force.” This information was for a jury to decide and not for the Honorable Judge to decide as per Virginia Code and relative law governing such issues. 8. The circuit court erred by making a ruling on the evidence in which was not part of his duties as this is the duty of the jury. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/200095.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case ROBERT JOHN DODD v. HAROLD CLARKE, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (Record Number 200091) From Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; F.G. Rockwell, III, Judge. Counsel Johnathan P. Sheldon (Sheldon & Flood, P.L.C.) for appellant. Rosemary V. Bourne (Office of the Attorney General) for appellee. Assignment of Error The circuit court erred when it denied Dodd’s claim that his Double Jeopardy and Due Process rights under Art. I, §§ 8 & 11 of the Virginia Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated when he was tried and convicted on indictments that were identical. The circuit court erred when it denied Dodd’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective under the Virginia Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution for failing to object to the Double Jeopardy and Due Process violations. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/200091.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case AARON LOUIS GOLDBERG v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 191701) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Roger Alan Whitus (Office of the Public Defender) for appellant. Kelsey M. Bulger (Office of the Attorney General) for appellee. Assignment of Error I. The Court of Appeals erred by finding that any error in denying appellant’s motion in limine and admitting horizontal gaze nystagmus ("HGN") evidence was harmless. II. The Court of Appeals erred by failing to rule on whether the evidence of HGN testing was scientific, supported by sufficient foundational evidence of reliability, and was unfairly prejudicial in violation of appellant’s constitutional rights and the Virginia Rules of Evidence. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191701.pdf

Granted Appeal Summary Case PALMYRA ASSOCIATES, LLC, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS (Record Number 191680) From The Circuit Court of Fluvanna County; R.D. Taylor, Jr., Judge. Counsel Joseph E. Blackburn (Blackburn, Conte, Schilling & Click, P.C.) for appellants. Francis A. Cherry, Jr., and F. Adam Cherry, III (Randolph, Boyd, Cherry and Vaughan) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court erred as a matter of case law in striking David Sutton’s testimony as to his opinion of damages to the residue. 2. The trial court erred as a matter of case law in refusing to admit into evidence site plans Landowner had prepared over 10 years prior to the take showing the development potential of their property and overlays showing the impact of the imposition of the fourth leg of the roundabout on the development potential of their property. These plans are Refused Exhibits A, B & C. 3. The trial court erred in putting the parties on terms of either the court confirming the value of the take or ordering a new trial. 4. The trial court erred as a matter of case law in finding that Mr. Sutton’s testimony had anything to do with damaging the property on a “per lot” basis. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191680.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case DWAYNE RAMON SMITH v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL. (Record Number 191559) From The Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; D. Johnson, Judge. Counsel Henry W. McLaughlin (The Law Office of Henry McLaughlin, P.C.) for appellant. Robert W. Loftin (McGuireWoods LLP) for appellee. Assignment of Error 1. The Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia (“the trial court”) erred in the trial court’s written rulings on July 3, 2019 sustaining a plea in bar by appellee Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) and a plea in bar by appellee Equity Trustees, LLC (“Equity Trustees”). This was error because, when those pleas in bar came on for an evidentiary hearing before the trial court on June 13, 2019, after counsel had presented oral argument on a motion craving oyer and demurrers, although the appellant, Dwayne Smith (“Smith”) was present to present evidence in opposition to the plea in bar, on the basis of a proposal by counsel for Bank of America, agreed to by all counsel of record, the evidentiary hearing that had been scheduled for June 13, 2019 on the pleas in bar was not held, rather the trial court stated “Then we’ll just take the plea in bar completely under advisement. I’ll take the motion to crave oyer and the demurrer, with respect to the demurrer, today, under advisement. And I will respond to you within a week on the motion to crave oyer and the two demurrers. And then we’ll set the plea and bar or not depending on how the Court rules.” This amounted to a continuance of the evidentiary hearing set for June 13, 2019 on the pleas in bar. As a result, the case was not ready for decision on the pleas in bar and Smith was deprived of his due process opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the pleas in bar when the trial court, on July 3, 2019 issued written rulings sustaining the pleas in bar. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191559.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case C. ROBERT JOHNSON, III, ET AL. v. CITY OF SUFFOLK, ET AL. (Record Number 191563) From The Circuit Court for the City of Suffolk; L. Farmer, Judge. Counsel L. Steven Emmert (Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C.), Joseph T. Waldo and Russell G. Terman (Waldo & Lyle, P.C.) for appellants. David L. Arnold, D. Rossen S. Greene, and Matthew R. Hull (Pender & Coward, P.C.), and Christopher D. Pomeroy and Paul T. Nyffeler (AquaLaw PLC) for appellees. Assignment of Error The trial court erroneously sustained the demurrers, because the declaratory-judgment petition states a facially valid claim for inverse condemnation, and: A. The trial court erroneously based its ruling on federal caselaw interpreting the United States Constitution, because the oystermen’s claims are based on the Constitution of Virginia. B. The trial court erroneously ruled that the City and HRSD have the right to pollute the Commonwealth’s waters and that they need not pay just compensation to the oystermen. In doing so, it erroneously relied on now-obsolete caselaw and erroneously applied that caselaw. Assignments of Cross-Error (City of Suffolk) 1. The trial court erred in overruling the demurrers on the ground that an inverse condemnation case will not lie against the City because the City lacks the authority to exercise eminent domain over the oyster ground leases in this case. 2. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should have been dismissed because the Appellants failed to allege a public use and failed to allege facts sufficient to show that their property was taken or damaged for a public use. 3. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should have been dismissed because oyster ground leases do not guarantee lessees water of a certain purity or pollution level. 4. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument raised in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should be dismissed because whatever taking or damage the Appellants did allege was due to the state’s exercise of its police power. 5. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument raised in the City’s plea in bar that the Petition should be dismissed as time-barred because the claims are premised on conditions which have existed continuously since before the three-year statute of limitations. Assignment of Cross-Error (Hampton Roads Sanitation District) 1. The Circuit Court erred in denying in part HRSD’s demurrer by finding that HRSD has condemnation authority over Petitioners’ alleged oyster planting ground leases despite Virginia Code § 28.2-628, which removed its condemnation authority over grounds leased by the Commonwealth to third parties pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 28.2-600 et seq http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191563.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case DEBORAH C. GRAVES v. SAMANTHA SHOEMAKER (Record Number 191500) From The Circuit Court of Albemarle County; M. Hughes, Jr., Judge. Counsel Fletcher W. Harkrader (Marks & Harrison, P.C.) for appellant. John P. Cattano and Christopher L. Smith (Central Virginia Litigation, PLC) for appellee. Assignment of Error The trial court committed reversible error, improperly applied settled law as set forth in Lombard v. Rohrbaugh, 262 Va. 484 (2001), and abused its discretion in refusing to allow Plaintiff to cross-examine Defendant’s medical expert witness concerning bias or potential bias in favor of the defense based on his extensive, substantial, and ongoing financial connection to Defendant’s insurer; Plaintiff was entitled to elicit such testimony at trial concerning the expert’s substantial connection to the insurer as relevant to the expert’s bias or prejudice in this case. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191500.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case CARLA G. COLEMAN v. WESTWOOD BUILDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Record Number 191475) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; D. Bernhard, Judge. Counsel Kevin E. Smith (Law Office of Kevin E. Smith) for appellant. Mathew D. Ravencraft and Louise T. Gitcheva (Rees Broome, PC) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The lower court erred in failing to clearly identify what transfers violated the fraudulent conveyance statute and what transfers violated the voluntary conveyance statute and awarding identical in personam judgments in the amount of $380,864.91 for each yet finding them jointly and severally liable for a total global sum of $478,220.69. 2. The lower court erred in holding Appellant liable for Appellee’s conversion claim against Mr. Grayson individually when it subsequently included it in the total global sum that could be collected. 3. The lower court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees and sanctions in a case that is not a fraud case, where the court found there is no “pattern of misconduct” of “callous, deliberate, deceitful acts,” and where the plaintiff had not elected to proceed exclusively in equity, all in violation of this Court’s recent holding in MCR Federal, LLC v. JB&A, Inc., 294 Va. 446 (2017), as well as being contrary to the plain meaning of Va. Code § 55¬82.1, especially where a claim for such sanctions were never pled, briefed, noticed for a hearing, or timely requested. 4. The trial court erred in finding Appellant liable as a participant as a transferee in violation of the plain meaning of those terms as laid out in La Bella Dona Skin Care, Inc. v. Belle Femme Enterprises, LLC when she never personally received any of the fraudulent transfers or had signatory authority and/or ownership interest on any of the bank accounts where such transfers were deposited as well as for deposits of negotiable instruments made out to G&K, K&A, and  GLC she was required to make as part of her job regarding payments received by G&K, K&A, GLC and Grayson.

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case ANN M. WILBURN, ET AL. v. ANTHONY JOHN MANGANO (Record Number 191443) From The Circuit Court of Northumberland County; R.M. McKenney, Judge. Counsel Breckenridge Ingles (Martin, Ingles & Hensley, Ltd.) for appellants. Richard H. Stuart for appellee. Assignment of Error The trial court erroneously sustained a demurrer to an action for specific performance of a land contract on the basis that there was no meeting of the minds as to price where the contract expressly stated that the purchaser would pay “the fair market value at the time of [vendor’s] death.” http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191443.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case ALAN M. GRAYSON, ET AL. v. WESTWOOD BUILDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Record Number 191413) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; D. Bernhard, Judge. Counsel Bernard J. DiMuro and Michael Lieberman (DiMuro Ginsberg, PC) for appellants. Mathew D. Ravencraft and Louise T. Gitcheva (Rees Broome, PC) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering in personam judgments for “fraudulent conveyances,” “voluntary conveyances” and conversion in favor of an unsecured creditor: (a) against a senior, secured creditor with a perfected security interest who was recovering on a debt, (b) against several non-transferees who cannot be liable for conveyances they never received, and (c) against Petitioners without determining the transferors’ fraudulent intent or insolvency, all in violation of this Court’s then-recent holding in La Bella Dona Skin Care v. Belle Femme, 294 Va. 243 (2017), or otherwise contrary to the plain meaning of Va. Code §§ 55-80 & 55-81; and (d) in this context, further erred in ruling that the ‘Buy-Out Agreement’ preceding the debt lacked consideration, or that any such lack of consideration could nullify the later extension of credit or the resulting senior secured, perfected creditor status. 2. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering a “conversion” judgment against Grayson because he was a client of a commercial transaction attorney (actually, a shareholder of that client), when that attorney simply collected on a senior, secured debt pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code [see, e.g., Va. Code § 8.9A-205(a)] and the Executions section of Virginia Civil Remedies and Procedures (with the lower court wrongly concluding that boilerplate fieri facias language in a garnishment directed to someone else somehow compelled that attorney to refrain from such collection, and wrongly applying the tort of conversion to money to which the landlord had no exclusive and immediate right). 3. The lower court erred as a matter of law in failing to dismiss all claims against all Petitioners under res judicata, when such claims could have been brought in prior litigation regarding the same conduct, transactions and occurrences (and were actually known to the plaintiff during prior litigation), and when the prior parties were in privity to all Petitioners, in violation of this Court’s recent holding in Funny Guy, LLC v. Lecego, LLC, 293 Va. 135 (2017) and contrary to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1:6. 4. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering judgment against all Petitioners for fraudulent conveyances and voluntary conveyances without requiring proof by “clear, cogent and convincing evidence” from the landlord, and by shifting the burden of proof onto the defendants, in violation of this Court’s holding in Suntrust Bank v. PS Business Parks, L.P., 292 Va. 644 (2016). 5. The lower court erred as a matter of law in improperly calculating damages by: (a) awarding damages for injury that did not exist at the time of the transfers; (b) refusing to make the necessary “ratable distribution” between creditors (the landlord and Grayson/GSA); (c) refusing to honor the right under Virginia law for debtors K&A and AMG to prefer one creditor over another; (d) assessing liability for the “IDT transfers” on parties against whom the IDT transfers were not pled; and (e) awarding damages for time-barred transfers. 6. The lower court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees and sanctions in a nonfraud case, where there is no “pattern of misconduct” of “callous, deliberate, deceitful acts,” and where the plaintiff had not elected to proceed exclusively in equity, all in violation of this Court’s recent holding in MCR Federal, LLC v. JB&A, Inc., 294 Va. 446 (2017), and contrary to the plain meaning of Va. Code § 55-82.1, especially where a claim for such sanctions was never pled, briefed, noticed for a hearing, or timely requested. 7. The lower court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees against all of the Petitioners for all of the claims asserted, including claims that were dismissed, claims for which attorney’s fees are not recoverable, claims against defendants who were found not liable, claims brought only against some defendants and not others, damages that were denied, and one claim for which the landlord specifically refrained from requesting attorney’s fees during trial. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191413.pdf Granted Appeal Summary Case VICTOR KUBLI, ET AL. v. WESTWOOD BUILDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Record Number 191414) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; D. Bernhard, Judge. Counsel Bernard J. DiMuro and Michael Lieberman (DiMuro Ginsberg, PC) for appellants. Mathew D. Ravencraft and Louise T. Gitcheva (Rees Broome, PC) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering in personam judgments for “fraudulent conveyances,” “voluntary conveyances” and conversion in favor of an unsecured creditor: (a) against a senior, secured creditor with a perfected security interest who was recovering on a debt, (b) against several non-transferees who cannot be liable for conveyances that they never received, and (c) against Petitioners without determining the transferors’ fraudulent intent or insolvency, all in violation of this Court’s then-recent holding in La Bella Dona Skin Care v. Belle Femme, 294 Va. 243 (2017), or otherwise contrary to the plain meaning of Va. Code §§ 55-80 & 55-81; and (d) in this context, further erred in ruling that the ‘Buy-Out Agreement’ preceding the debt lacked consideration, or that any such lack of consideration could nullify the later extension of credit or the resulting senior secured, perfected creditor status. 2. [RESERVED – The second Grayson assignment of error applies only to Grayson (Record No. 191413), because that assignment refers to the conversion claim, which was pled only against Grayson. We reserve this in order to maintain the same numbering of assignments.] 3. The lower court erred as a matter of law in failing to dismiss all claims against all Petitioners under res judicata, when such claims could have been brought in prior litigation regarding the same conduct, transactions and occurrences (and were actually known to the plaintiff during prior litigation), and when the prior parties were in privity to all Petitioners, in violation of this Court’s recent holding in Funny Guy, LLC v. Lecego, LLC, 293 Va. 135 (2017) and contrary to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1:6. 4. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering judgment against all Petitioners for fraudulent conveyances and voluntary conveyances without requiring proof by “clear, cogent and convincing evidence” from the landlord, and by shifting the burden of proof onto the defendants, in violation of this Court’s then-recent holding in Suntrust Bank v. PS Business Parks, L.P., 292 Va. 644 (2016). 5. The lower court erred as a matter of law in improperly calculating damages by: (a) awarding damages for injury that did not exist at the time of the transfers; (b) refusing to make the necessary “ratable distribution” between creditors (the landlord and Grayson/GSA); (c) refusing to honor the right under Virginia law for debtors K&A and AMG to prefer one creditor over another; (d) assessing liability for the “IDT transfers” on parties against whom the IDT transfers were not pled; and (e) awarding damages for time-barred transfers. 6. The lower court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees and sanctions in a nonfraud case, where there is no “pattern of misconduct” of “callous, deliberate, deceitful acts,” and where the plaintiff had not elected to proceed exclusively in equity, as this Court has required in its decisions, and contrary to the plain meaning of Va. Code § 55-82.1, especially where a claim for such sanctions was never pled, briefed, noticed for a hearing, or timely requested. 7. The lower court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees against all of the Petitioners for all of the claims asserted, including claims that were dismissed, claims for which attorney’s fees are not recoverable, claims against defendants who were found not liable, claims brought only against some defendants and not others, damages that were denied, and one claim for which the landlord specifically refrained from requesting attorney’s fees during trial. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191414.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case JESSICA SHOEMAKER, ADMINISTRATOR AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GINA ANGELA SHOEMAKER v. RICHARD E. FUNKHOUSER, ET AL. (Record Number 191218) From The Circuit Court of Shenandoah County; C. Athey, Judge. Counsel Bradley G. Pollack, Esq., for appellant. Randall T. Perdue and Joseph Ross Newell, III (TimberlakeSmith) for appellees. Assignment of Error 1. The trial court erred in sustaining Funkhousers’ joint demurrer to the second amended complaint. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191218.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case MARY CARROLL GRIFFITH PLATT, ET AL. v. MARY CATHERINE MILES GRIFFITH, ET AL. (Record Number 190817) From The Circuit Court of Henrico County; J. Marshall, Judge. Counsel Daniel A. Carrell (Carrell Blanton Ferris & Associates, PLC) and Robert Coleman Smith (Robert C. Smith, PLC) for appellants. W. Benjamin Pace and Joseph R. Pope (Williams Mullen) and Hugh T. Antrim (ThompsonMcMullan, P.C.) for appellees. Assignment of Error The circuit court erred as a matter of law by ordering that plaintiffs, qualified beneficiaries under their father’s will, lacked standing to sue other beneficiaries who had induced the testator to make inter vivos transfers to them when he lacked capacity and was subjected to undue influence. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190817.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case SGT KANG’S GROUP, LLC v. BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA (Record Number 191423) From The Circuit Court of Prince William County; K. Irving, Judge. Counsel Chapman Petersen, David L. Amos (Chap Petersen & Associates, P.L.C.), Henry E. Howell, III, and Benjamin L. Perdue (The Eminent Domain Litigation Group, P.L.C.) for appellant. Michelle R. Robl, Alan F. Smith, and Nathan C. Welch (Prince William County Attorney’s Office) for appellee. Assignments of Error The Trial Court erred in holding the recordation of a certain plat operated to grant an “ingress-egress” easement to the County. The Trial Court erred in not applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel to prevent the County from asserting an inconsistent position in its Motion in Limine. The Trial Court erred in ruling that Kang was not entitled to put on “any and all evidence” of activities in the “ingress-egress” easement area. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191423.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case HOWARD ALLEN GROFFEL v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 191360) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Ivan D. Fehrenbach (D.R. Dansby, Ltd.) for appellee. Mark R. Herring, Virginia B. Theisen (Office of the Attorney General) for appellant. Assignment of Error The Court of Appeals erred when it failed to overturn four of Groffel’s five convictions for violating 18.2-308.1:4 for one act while subject to five protective orders. Such convictions violated Groffel’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid multiple punishments for the same offense. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191360.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA v. HOWARD ALLEN GROFFEL (Record Number 191233) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Mark R. Herring, Virginia B. Theisen (Office of the Attorney General) for appellant. Ivan D. Fehrenbach (D.R. Dansby, Ltd.) for appellee. Assignment of Error In this case of first impression, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession by a felon of ammunition incompatible with the firearms with which it was possessed violated the double jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191233.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case MICHAEL V. MCCLARY, ET AL. v. SCOTT H. JENKINS, SHERIFF, ET AL. (Record Number 191132) From The Circuit Court of Culpeper County; P. Peatross, Judge. Counsel Vishal Agraharkar, Eden B. Heilman, and Jennifer Safstrom (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Virginia) and Casey E. Lucier, Dale G. Mullen, Travis C. Gunn, and Ashley P. Peterson (McGuireWoods LLP) for appellants. Rosalie Fessier (Timberlake, Smith, Thomas & Moses, P.C.) and Bobbi Jo Alexis (Office of the Culpeper County Attorney) for appellee. Assignments of Error The circuit court erred as a matter of law in sustaining Sheriff Jenkins’s demurrer, denying Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, and entering final judgment on Plaintiffs’ Counts I and II because neither the Constitution of Virginia nor the General Assembly has authorized Virginia sheriffs either (A) to contract with the federal government to enforce federal civil immigration law, or (B) to otherwise enforce federal civil immigration law. The circuit court erred as a matter of law in sustaining the Board of Supervisors of Culpeper County’s demurrer, denying Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, and entering final judgment on Plaintiffs’ Count III because neither the Constitution of Virginia nor the General Assembly has authorized localities to appropriate funds to enforce federal civil immigration law. The circuit court erred in denying Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file an amended complaint because courts should liberally grant leave to amend and additional factual pleading would remedy any issues potentially supporting dismissal. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191132.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case MARBLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL. v. STEVEN M. MALLON, ET AL. (Record Number 191131) From The Circuit Court of the City of Hampton; M. Gaten, Judge. Counsel James J. Reid (David Kamp & Frank, L.L.C.) for appellants. Matthew D. Meadows (Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly, P.C.) for appellees. Assignment of Error The lower court erred in denying the Plea in Bar of Res Judicata filed by Defendants Sebastian Plucinski and Marble Technologies, Inc. (“Defendants”) because the Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are the same claims for relief between the same parties or their privies regarding the same conduct, transaction or occurrence that had been previously adjudicated on the merits in the matter styled, Mallon et al. v. Marble Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. CL11-1684; reversed in Marble Techs., Inc. v. Mallon, 290 Va. 27, 773 S.E.2d 155 (2015). Assignment of Cross-Error The lower court erred when it certified the Petitioners’ Interlocutory Appeal of the Court’s denial of their Plea in Bar of Res Judicata filed by Sabastian Plucinksi and Marble Technologies, Inc. because the Petitioners did not agree that an Interlocutory Appeal is in the parties’ best interest as required by Virginia Code § 8.01-670.1. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191131.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. v. HARRISON NEAL (Record Number 191129) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; R. Smith, Judge. Counsel Elizabeth D. Teare, Karen L. Gibbons, and Kimberly P. Baucom (Fairfax County Attorney’s Office); Stuart A. Raphael, Trevor S. Cox, and Matthew R. McGuire (Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP) for appellant. Edward S. Rosenthal, Lana M. Manitta, and David C. Rohrbach (Rich Rosenthal Brincefield Manitta Dzubin & Kroeger, PLLC); Eden Heilman and Jennifer Safstrom (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Virginia, Inc.) for appellee. Assignments of Error The circuit court erred in concluding that the Department’s ALPR system is an “information system” under the Data Act because the ALPR system does not itself contain “the name, personal number, or other identifying particulars of a data subject.” Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3801. The ALPR system does not become “a record-keeping process” under the Data Act simply because police officers have the ability [to] take a license plate number stored in the ALPR system and manually enter it into other databases, not maintained by the Department, to discover the identity of the vehicle owner. If the ALPR system is construed to include information that the Department could potentially access through the NCIC, VCIN, and the DMV databases, which can only be accessed with a valid criminal justice purpose, then the Court should decide anew, based on the changed factual predicate, whether the ALPR system is exempt under Code § 2.2-3802(7) notwithstanding Neal I’s contrary conclusion. The circuit court erred in ruling that the Department’s creation of an “information system” consisting of passively acquired ALPR data violates the Data Act. The circuit court erred in enjoining the Department from creating and maintaining an information system that consists of information captured by ALPR cameras. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191129.pdf   Granted Appeal Summary Case HARRISON NEAL v. FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. (Record Number 191127) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; R. Smith, Judge. Counsel Edward S. Rosenthal, Lana M. Manitta, and David C. Rohrbach (Rich Rosenthal Brincefield Manitta Dzubin & Kroeger, PLLC); Eden Heilman and Jennifer Safstrom (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Virginia, Inc.) for appellant. Elizabeth D. Teare, Karen L. Gibbons, and Kimberly P. Baucom (Fairfax County Attorney’s Office) for appellee. Assignments of Error The trial court abused its discretion under Code Section 2.2-3809 in awarding less than 11% of the reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs proven by detailed billing records and affidavits. The trial court erred by excluding the affidavit of Bernard J. DiMuro, Neal’s attorneys’ fees expert. Assignment of Cross-Error The trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs was error because the circuit court erred in concluding that the Department violated the Data Act, and in issuing an injunction. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191127.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case DEVINCHE JAVON ALBRITTON v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 191030) From Circuit Court of Sussex County; W. Sharrett, Judge. Counsel Devinche Javon Albritton, pro se. Stacie A. Sessoms (Office of the Attorney General) for appellee. Assignments of Error The Sussex County Circuit Court erred and abused its discretion by Granting the defendant’s Plea of Sovereign Immunity upon the defendant’s assertion that Appellant Albritton failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Sussex County Circuit Court erred and abused its discretion in Granting the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment upon its finding that the Evidence produced and Submitted by Appellant Albritton was insufficient from which a jury could find the defendant guilty of negligence. The Sussex County Circuit Court erred and abused its discretion in Granting the defendant Commonwealth’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Contributory negligence based solely upon the inadmissible Hearsay Evidence submitted by the defense. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191030.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case DUMFRIES-TRIANGLE RESCUE SQUAD, INCORPORATED v. BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA (Record Number 191000) From Circuit Court of Prince William County; S. Smith, Judge. Counsel John H. Foote, Garth M. Wainman, and Matthew A. Westover (Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley & Walsh, P.C.) for appellant. Michelle R. Robl and Megan E. Kelly (Office of the County Attorney) for appellee. Assignments of Error Granted The trial court erred in overruling DTRS’s Demurrer, because the Board lacks the authority to dissolve the separate corporate status of DTRS. The trial court erred in granting the Board’s Motion for Summary Judgment because the Board was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, since it lacks the authority to dissolve DTRS’s corporate status. The trial court erred in granting the Motion for Summary Judgment because its reliance on Virginia Code Ann. § 13.1-907 regarding the distribution of DTRS’s assets to the Board or to an entity engaged in activities substantially similar to DTRS was erroneous. The trial court erred in overruling DTRS’s Plea in Bar because the Board has no authority to compel DTRS to convey its property to the Board or another entity engaged in similar activities as DTRS, pursuant to Virginia Code Ann. § 13.1-907, a statute that is inapplicable in this case but that was relied on by the trial court. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191000.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case ALEXANDRIA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ET AL. v. KERRI HANDEL (Record Number 190957) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Michael S. Bliley and Andrew M. Alexander (Siciliano, Ellis, Dyer & Boccarosse PLC) for appellants. M. Thomas McWeeny and Julie H. Heiden (Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lightfoot, L.L.P.) for appellee. Ralph L. Witt, Jr., Megan Kerwin Clark, and A. Jacob Perkinson (Whitt & Del Bueno, PC) for amici curiae Prince William County Public Schools, Virginia Risk Sharing Association, and Virginia Self-Insurers Association. Assignments of Error The Court of Appeals erred in finding that a claimant must only prove a structural or mechanical change to one body part in order for all injuries caused by an accident to be compensable. The Court of Appeals erred in finding that Appellee suffered an injury to her right shoulder, as opposed to mere transient pain http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190957.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case BRANDI CARR v. SAHARA MOTORS, LLC (Record Number 190938) From The Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth; D. Sword, Judge. Counsel Lenard Myers II (Fortress Proprietas, P.C.) for appellant. No counsel of record for appellee. Assignment of Error The Circuit Court for the City of Portsmouth (“the trial court”) erred and abused its discretion when it entered its final order on April 16, 2019 dismissing with prejudice and denying Appellant’s Motion to Reconsider Dismissal, Reopen and Rehear. The trial court concluded, without considering evidence offered during the hearing, that Appellant’s non-appearance to Court on February 28, 2019 (a preliminarily, but not final trial date) was a result of “somebody not following up court dates” even though no scheduling order was entered the parties were actively holding settlement conversations and Appellant’s attorney followed the trial court Docket Clerk’s instructions which are contained on the Civil Docket Control Procedures of January 22, 2007 published on the trial court’s website, pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-4. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190938.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case KERRY ANN SHEEHY v. RENEE WILLIAMS (Record Number 190802) From From the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach; J. Lewis, Judge. Counsel Brandon H. Zeigler and Kellam T. Parks (Parks Zeigler, PLLC) for appellant. Kevin E. Martingayle (Bischoff Martingayle, P.C.) for appellee. Assignments of Error The trial court erred as a matter of law in interpreting Virginia Code § 8.01-40.4 when it awarded compensatory and punitive damages solely on proof of intentional conduct without Respondent producing any evidence of such damages. The trial court erred in finding Respondent had sufficiently proved all the elements of Va. Code §18.2-386.2, where she failed to prove the dissemination at issue was “malicious” and that it was done with the “intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate.” The trial court erred in allowing Respondent to argue contrary to the testimony of Richard Garriott, a witness Respondent sponsored, and whose testimony was uncontradicted by any other evidence. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190802.pdf   Granted Appeal Summary Case KERRY ANN SHEEHY v. RENEE WILLIAMS (Record Number 191089) From the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach; J. Lewis, Judge. Counsel Brandon H. Zeigler and Kellam T. Parks (Parks Zeigler, PLLC) for appellant. Kevin E. Martingayle (Bischoff Martingayle, P.C.) for appellee. Assignment of Error The trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding Respondent attorney’s fees because there was no legal basis for the damages award, and therefore, no basis for the fees award. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191089.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case RAEQUAN EVANS S/K/A RAEQUAN D. EVANS v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 190846) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel J. Barry McCracken (OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER) for appellant. Kristin S. Fellers (OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY) for appellee. Assignment of Error The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s motion to dismiss because the prosecution of the Defendant for the possession of the firearm constituted a successive prosecution of the Defendant for the same act as that which was the subject of an earlier trial and conviction in the Norfolk General District Court for misdemeanor possession of a concealed weapon, such successive prosecution being barred by the provisions of Virginia Code § 19.2-294. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190846.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case CALVIN HAMPTON v. NOAH J. MEYER (Record Number 191194) From The Circuit Court of the City of Richmond; B. Snukals, Judge. Counsel Juli M. Porto (Blankingship & Keith, P.C.) and Thomas M. Konvicka (The Joel Bieber Firm) for appellant. Henry S. Carter, E. Brandon Ferrell, and Kerrigan C.K. O’Malley (Carter & Shands, P.C.) for appellee. Assignment of Error The trial court erred by failing to find that the named defendant in Hampton’s initial complaint was a misnomer that tolled the statute of limitations, and by sustaining the special plea of the statute of limitations to the re-filed complaint. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191194.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case MARIAH LESLIE CONWAY v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 190898) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Michael A. Nicholas (Daniel, Medley & Kirby, P.C.) for appellant. Edward H. Palmore (Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney) for appellee. Assignment of Error The Circuit Court of the City of Danville erred when it denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to Virginia Code §19.2-294. The Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the Circuit Court’s error. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190898.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com 05/28/2020 In a declaratory judgment action seeking an order that the Commissioner of Highways provide statutorily required relocation benefits under Code § 25.1-406 of the Virginia Relocation Assistance Act, the circuit court did not err in sustaining a defense demurrer because there is no implied private cause of action under the Act for payment of relocation expenses. In addition, the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies afforded to him under 24 VAC § 30-41-90, and had Virginia Administrative Process Act and mandamus remedies available. The judgment sustaining the demurrer in the present action is affirmed. http://www.courts.state.va.us/scndex.htm

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case MID-ATLANTIC ARENA, LLC v. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH (Record Number 191020) From The Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach; H.T. Padrick, Jr., Judge. Counsel Samuel W. Meekins, Jr., Adam M. Carroll, John F. Sawyer (Wolcott Rivers Gates), Mark F. Bideau, Andrea Shwayri Ferraro (Greenburg Traurig, P.A.), and Robert F. McDonnell for appellant. Gary A. Bryant and Brett A. Spain (Willcox & Savage P.C.) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court erred when it held the closing did not satisfy the terms of the Development Agreement and therefore the City termination was proper. a. The trial court erred when it held that the Development Agreement required at closing (i) the Loan to be “fully funded” and (ii) the AEG capital contribution to be in place because it was “too big” to be a post-closing item. b. The trial court erred when it held that a Support Agreement between third parties was a construction loan document the City had a right to review and approve and that Developer breached the Development Agreement because the Support Agreement was not provided to the City. 2. The trial court erred when it failed to find that the City’s admitted refusal to cooperate with the closing and refusal to convey the property constituted breaches and repudiations of the Development Agreement. 3. The trial court erred when it relied upon extrinsic evidence, personal experience as a practicing attorney on residential loan closings and stated sympathy to erroneously construe the unambiguous Development Agreement to support the City’s termination. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191020.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case FRED W. VEST v. MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC (Record Number 191014) From The Circuit Court of Roanoke County; D. Carson, Judge. Counsel Evans G. Edwards and Thomas J. Bondurant (Gentry Locke) for appellant. Wade W. Massie and Seth M. Land (Penn, Stuart & Eskridge) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court erred in denying Vest summary judgment on his trespass counterclaim, and instead granting summary judgment for MVP. a. The trial court erred in ruling in favor of MVP, because MVP failed to comply with either the plain meaning of the natural gas surveying statute’s notice of intent to enter provision (Va. Code § 56-49.01(C)) or the most reasonable alternative interpretation of that provision. b. The trial court erroneously adopted MVP’s interpretation of Va. Code § 56-49.01(C) and failed to give effect to the legislative intent and different language contained in that section and § 56-49.01(B). c. The trial court should have granted Vest summary judgment, because MVP failed to give proper notice to Vest under Va. Code § 56-49.01(C), and its surveyors trespassed when they entered upon his land without his permission on April 9, 2016. 2. The trial court erred in granting MVP summary judgment on Vest’s trespass counterclaim; the record contains a genuine dispute of material fact whether MVP waived any limited statutory privilege it had to survey when it agreed to reschedule surveying to later in April yet sent its surveyors onto Vest’s land anyway on April 9. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191014.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case DAVID R. BRAUN v. QUANTADYN CORPORATION, ET AL. (Record Number 190974) From The Circuit Court of Loudoun County; D. Fleming, Judge. Counsel Alan C. Bowden (Meyer & Bowden PLLC) and Michael E. Kinney (Turner & Kinney, A Professional Corporation) for appellant. Robert A. DeRise (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) and William R. Fitzpatrick (Sevila, Saunders Huddleston & White) for appellees. Assignments of Error 1. The circuit court failed to rule on Petitioner’s argument, based on uncontroverted evidence, that this action commenced upon the submission of multiple signed Complaints to the Clerk’s office on August 4, 2015. 2. The circuit court erroneously construed Va. Code § 8.01-271.1 not to apply to initial pleadings and, based on that erroneous construction, concluded that Petitioner’s “only remedy was to file a properly signed complaint in a new action.” 3. The circuit court erroneously construed Va. Code § 8.01-271.1 to require leave of court to correct the omission of a signature on a pleading. 4. The circuit court erred by concluding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his former counsel “promptly” cured the omission of a signature after it was called to his attention, as authorized by Va. Code § 8.01-271.1. 5. The circuit court erred by concluding that there was insufficient evidence to establish when the Complaint had been signed. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190974.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case RUBEN EDWARD MOORE v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 190856) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Charles E. Haden for appellant. Anton Bell (Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney) and Phillip O. Figura (Office of the Attorney General) for appellee. Assignment of Error 1. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of Moore’s motion to strike (and motion to set aside) the murder charge, where the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove murder by Moore and should not have been allowed to go to the jury, since the evidence at best created merely a suspicion of guilt and was plainly insufficient to prove that Moore had committed that offense. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190856.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case HERBERT F. TOWNES, JR., ET AL. v. VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS (Record Number 190834) From The Circuit Court of the City of Hopewell; W. Tomko, Judge. Counsel W. Barry Montgomery and W. Andrew Webb (Kalbaugh Pfund & Messersmith, P.C.) for appellants. Heather Hays Lockerman (Office of the Attorney General) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The Circuit Court erred when it instructed the jury that the Commonwealth’s burden of proof was a showing by the preponderance of the evidence as opposed to clear and convincing evidence. 2. The Circuit Court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to expand its grounds for removal of the respondents beyond the grounds pled in its sworn Petition for Removal of Appointed Officer. 3. The Circuit Court abused its discretion and erred excluding various defense evidence including: training and education of the respondents; the 2018 Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission report regarding the Operations and Performance of Virginia’s Department of Elections; the 2016 Report from the General Registrar/Electoral Board Working Group; and political party affiliation of witnesses. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190834.pd

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com 05/28/2020 In ruling on a declaratory judgment case requesting construction of a decedent’s will and a determination of the extent of his widow’s interest in his house and farm, the circuit court did not err in receiving parol evidence from the attorney who drafted the will, or in ruling that the widow had a right to live in the house for so long as she is physically and mentally able to do so, rather than a life estate in the entire property. The judgment is affirmed. http://www.courts.state.va.us/scndex.htm

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case DERRICK LYNDON WOOTEN v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 190805) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Scott Michael Ehrenworth for appellant. Howard E. Gwynn and Melissa lotti Freudenberg (Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney) for appellee. Assignment of Error 1. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of Wooten’s motion to suppress where: a) Detective Nichol lacked probable cause or a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity at the moment he demanded that Wooten hand over the unlabeled pill bottle and forced Wooten to get out of the car and be placed into handcuffs; b) where Wooten didn’t disavow ownership of the pill bottle until after Detective Nichol demanded the pill bottle and the illegal seizure of the pill bottle had already taken place; and c) where the pill bottle was in plain view inside the car but the incriminating character of the bottle’s contents was not immediately apparent and there was nothing about the unlabeled pill bottle that would justify Detective Nichol in concluding that a crime had been committed and that an immediate warrantless seizure and search of the pill bottle was warranted. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190805.pdf