DOCSLIB.ORG

2019 Boyd-Graves Conference October 4-5, 2019 Hotel Roanoke

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2019 Boyd-Graves Conference October 4-5, 2019 Hotel Roanoke 2019 Boyd-Graves Conference October 4-5, 2019 Hotel Roanoke Revised Materials BOYD-GRAVES CONFERENCE Hotel Roanoke Roanoke, Virginia October 4-5, 2019 AGENDA STEERING COMMITTEE: Friday, October 4 Appalachian Room 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. SESSIONS: Friday, October 4 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Roanoke Ballroom AB Saturday, October 5 9:00 a.m. – noon Roanoke Ballroom AB RECEPTION: Friday, October 4 6:00 p.m. Crystal-Roanoke Foyer DINNER: Friday, October 4 7:00 p.m. (Business Attire) Crystal Ballroom AC Acknowledgment The Boyd-Graves Conference expresses its heartfelt appreciation to the Virginia Bar Association for its extensive support of the Conference. Although the Conference is not part of the VBA, the VBA makes its staff available for administrative support of Conference activities. The Boyd-Graves members especially thank the staff of the VBA for their outstanding contributions to the success of this Conference. The 2019 Boyd-Graves Conference is supported by many generous sponsors from our members, and we appreciate your time, expertise and financial support. But this year, Boyd- Graves received an unexpected grant from Virginia Tech’s Center for Organizational and Technological Advancement (COTA) in the amount of $1,110 to support our meeting. COTA provides grants to support conferences and programs hosted at the Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center. COTA seeks to bring organizations to the Roanoke Valley area to highlight the many offerings of the area. We embrace the opportunity to visit the Star City and Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center and thank COTA for their generous support of our meeting. REVISED TABLE OF CONTENTS Friday, October 4, 2019 Topic Time Tab Page Introductions 2:00 p.m. 1 1 John A. C. Keith, Conference Chair Minutes of 2018 Conference 2:10 p.m. 2 5 Donna M. Rostant, Conference Secretary Conference Arrangements 2:15 p.m. John A. C. Keith, Conference Chair Legislative Report 2:20 p.m. 3 21 Professor Hamilton Bryson Rules of Evidence Update 2:30 p.m. 4 39 Lee Livingston Kent Sinclair HB 1888 – Statute of Limitations on Sexual Abuse Actions 2:50 p.m. 5 48 Irv Blank Amendment to §8.01-271 re: Client Signing Pleadings - McGinnis Case 3:05 p.m. 6 51 Roger Creager GDC Rulings on Unlawful Detainer After Appeal 3:25 p.m. 7 64 Grimes Creasy Va. Code §8.01-422 – Statutory Recoupment 3:35 p.m. 8 89 David Gogal Motions to Crave Oyer 3:45 p.m. 9 96 John McGavin GDC Jurisdiction 4:05 p.m. 10 199 Brian Dolan Va. Code §8.01-521.20(C) – Limit Experts to Two Per Issue 4:15 p.m. 11 213 Stephanie Grana Va. Code §54.1-3933 in Light of Rule 3:25 4:25 p.m. 12 217 Stephen Price Va. Code §8.01-113 – Judicial Sales 4:35 p.m. 13 225 Bill Glover SB 1190 – Heirs Property 4:45 p.m. 14 232 David Gogal i Saturday, October 5, 2019 Topic Time Tab Page Cumulative Experts Fee Shifting 9:00 a.m. 15 271 Elizabeth Perrow Blockchaining 9:05 a.m. 16 274 Jay O’Keefe Va. Code §8.01-670 Interlocutory Appeals - Legislative Privilege 9:25 a.m. 17 294 Stuart Raphael Virginia Supreme Court Rules – Statement of Court’s Jurisdiction 9:40 a.m. 18 318 Monica Monday Final Pretrial Conference 9:50 a.m. 19 321 Lee Livingston Use of Depositions in Court Proceedings 10:00 a.m. 20 325 Sandy Havrilak Amendment to UPTSO to Extend Time for Expert Designations 10:10 a.m. 21 328 Richard Ottinger Rule 3:8 – Define Responsive Pleadings 10:20 a.m. 22 331 Arthur Schmalz Removal of Custody Cases from JDR 10:35 a.m. 23 349 Larry Diehl Magistrate Judges in Circuit Court 10:45 a.m. 24 354 Stephanie Grana for Derrick Walker Va. Code §55-820.2 10:55 a.m. 25 357 George Peterson a.-p. Is Publication a Reasonable Way to Give Notice 11:05 a.m. 26 359 John Walk Deadman’s Statute Study 27 381 Thomas W. Williamson, Jr. Best Report Award Presented by Conference Chair Concluding Remarks John A. C. Keith, Conference Chair ii TAB 1 1 MISSION STATEMENT The Boyd-Graves Conference seeks to improve the quality of civil justice in Virginia. It does so through scholarly study and discussion among experienced civil trial lawyers, judges, legislators, and educators, leading to recommendations for changes to the rules and statutes governing the civil justice system in Virginia. The credibility of the Boyd-Graves Conference is maintained by reporting only on areas in which its members have expertise. Invitations to participate in the Conference are issued based upon demonstrated competence in civil litigation, with a view to fostering balance and diversity in practice areas, in gender and ethnic backgrounds, in geographic dispersion throughout Virginia, and in representation of various firm sizes and practice groups. The Boyd-Graves Conference does not represent or advocate the interests of any group or constituency. The independence of the Conference depends on the good faith of the members’ voting their conscience. Members must sometimes subordinate the private interests of the groups to which they belong, or even their own practice area, to the greater good. By accepting an invitation to participate in the Boyd-Graves Conference, each member pledges to uphold these principles. HISTORY More than three decades ago, Thomas V. Monahan, past-president of both the Virginia Bar Association and the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, invited a small group of experienced civil trial lawyers to a meeting at the Tides Inn in Irvington to discuss potential changes in the rules and procedures applicable to the trial of civil cases in Virginia state courts. Those invited to attend the initial meeting included lawyers from across Virginia who practiced in both large and small firms. A deliberate effort was made to secure a balance between those who primarily represented plaintiffs in civil trials and those who typically represented defendants. From the outset, the focus of the Conference was the identification and discussion of problems encountered in State court civil litigation, with the objective of reaching a consensus concerning needed changes in either the Rules of Court or the Code of Virginia. Whenever a consensus was reached, the resulting recommendation was made directly to the Supreme Court or to the General Assembly. The Conference, which initially took its name from the site of the meetings, came to be known as the Tides Inn Conference. In its formative years, the Conference worked closely with T. Munford Boyd, Edward S. Graves, and Leigh B. Middleditch, Jr., who had served as advisors to the Virginia Code Commission during the 1977 transition of the Code of Civil Procedure from Title 8 to Title 8.01. Because of their significant contribution to the success of the Conference, the name was changed to the Boyd- Graves Conference. 2 The Conference soon outgrew the Tides Inn, and for many years its annual meetings have been rotated to locations throughout the Commonwealth. What began as informal face-to-face meetings on the sofas of a small lounge at the Tides Inn is now a carefully planned event attended by more than 100 lawyers, judges, professors, and legislators. The Conference is governed by a Steering Committee and a Chair, who generally serves for two years. The Conference has a familial relationship with the Virginia Bar Association, which serves as the repository of the Conference’s records and financial resources and provides invaluable administrative support. Membership in the Conference continues to be by invitation only. We endeavor to facilitate a full and open discussion of issues by maintaining a roundtable configuration and by limiting the number of participants. Larger numbers tend to constrain the individual participation that has been so vital to the work of the Conference. There are no term limits, but neither are there permanent members. Even those who are most active are regularly rotated off the membership rolls to make room for new participants. The Membership Committee attempts to maintain a balance of representation from the various civil litigation practice disciplines, selecting individuals with experience, reputation, and demonstrated ability to contribute to the work of the Conference, as well as a willingness to put aside what benefits his or her particular practice in favor of a solution in the best interests of all involved in civil litigation in Virginia. Although the Boyd-Graves Conference has become larger and more structured, it has remained true to its heritage. At each meeting, the members are invited to suggest topics for future consideration. Other study requests have come from judges, from lawyers who are not currently members of the Conference, and from legislators or legislative committees. The Boyd-Graves Conference feels a particular affinity for the Civil Litigation Section of the Virginia Bar Association, with which it shares members and many common professional interests; members of the Civil Litigation Section are invited to suggest potential topics for study. The Steering Committee evaluates each suggested topic and decides which should be approved for consideration at the next meeting of the Conference. The Conference Chair has the responsibility of appointing a committee to study each of the approved topics. Committee members frequently include lawyers who are not members of the Conference but who are willing to contribute their expertise to its work. Each committee is expected to complete its work and to submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the Conference Chair in advance of the annual meeting. These reports are published in the form of an agenda booklet that is distributed to each member of the Conference in advance of the annual meeting.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Case 3:18-Cv-00428-HEH Document 85 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 36 Pageid# 716
    Case 3:18-cv-00428-HEH Document 85 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 36 PageID# 716 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION FALLS CHURCH MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, ) d/b/a FALLS CHURCH HEALTHCARE CENTER, ) et al.; ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 3:18cv428-HEH ) M. NORMAN OLIVER, Virginia Health ) Commissioner, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS I-IV and COUNTS VII -VIII OF PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT i Case 3:18-cv-00428-HEH Document 85 Filed 03/11/19 Page 2 of 36 PageID# 717 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD .....................................1 STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ..............................................................3 ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................................7 A. Defendants are Entitled to Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ As-Applied Challenge to Virginia’s Physician-Only Law. ..........................................................................................7 1. Virginia Code § 18.2-72, as applied, imposes no substantial obstacle to abortion care. 8 2. Virginia Code § 18.2-72, as applied, provides benefits
    [Show full text]
  • Summons and Complaint Circuit Court Virginia Sample
    Summons And Complaint Circuit Court Virginia Sample Ethan still dibbing defiantly while undescendable Jameson curse that metage. Mathias remains secularistic after Hagen overwriting anticipatively or courts any yammer. Panzer and cosher Clare unburden his falx intoning emits untidily. Responding to contest Divorce let Law poverty-help Center. If the plaintiff fails to pit the summons and complaint on a. Motion for complaint if you sent a claim, property damage is software accessed through physical custody sample complaint and summons circuit court virginia have been received a summons which you and. For special interrogatories in the system and circuit in which you can sign. In order for reading to cramp a posture in Virginia either tree or your in must break a. What you might be added to a sample complaint form to do not believe those addresses are sample response to answer to keep your papers initiating papers. Where they I file a Conciliation Court claim If and case involves bad checks the superior should be filed in middle District seven of separate county retain the checks were. Docket no response explaining what each defense attorney in virginia and circuit court summons. Juhtumeid on child custody order vacating default by name search, which together can search online, subpoena relates and circuit and summons complaint court payments online electronic system provides helpful information. Service failure the summons and complaint on a corporation is governed by Fed R Civ P 4h. Clerks under penalty for summons and complaint circuit court virginia sample from abuse claims? Rule 35 The Summons Va R Sup Ct 35 Casetext.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia Harrisonburg Division
    United States District Court For the Western District of Virginia Harrisonburg Division _________________________________________ ) ) Civil No. 5:12cv00056 THOMAS L. SWITZER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) REPORT AND v. ) RECOMMENDATION ) ) SHERIFF JOHN THOMAS, et al, ) By: James G. Welsh ) U. S. Magistrate Judge Defendants. ) ) _________________________________________ ) This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to previously entered orders of referral. (Doc. 5, 17 and 18). Thomas L. Switzer (“Switzer” or “the plaintiff”), is a frequent litigant in this district, and he brings this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at the Page County (Virginia) Jail alleging that those officials subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 3). He also alleges that a jail nurse violated the privacy requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) by disclosing Switzer’s private medical information to other jail personnel and inmates. In response the defendants have moved to dismiss Switzer’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which this court can grant him relief (Doc. 9) and further moved for entry of an order requiring pre-filing review (Doc. 11 and 40). A show cause order (Doc. 49) was thereafter entered on September 20, 2012 providing the plaintiff with notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond to the defendants’ motion seeking a system of pre-filing review. See Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 819 (4th Cir. 2004) (“before a judge issues a pre-filing injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), even a narrowly tailored one, he must afford a litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard.”); F.R.C.P 11(c)(1).
    [Show full text]
  • Improper Delegation of Judicial Authority in Child Custody Cases: Finally Overturned Dale Margolin Cecka University of Richmond, [email protected]
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2017 Improper Delegation of Judicial Authority in Child Custody Cases: Finally Overturned Dale Margolin Cecka University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications Part of the Courts Commons, Family Law Commons, and the Juvenile Law Commons Recommended Citation Dale Margolin Cecka, Improper Delegation of Judicial Authority in Child Custody Cases: Finally Overturned, 52 U. Rich. L. Rev. 181 (2017). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPROPER DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES: FINALLY OVERTURNED Dale Margolin Cecka * "The appellate courts of this Commonwealth are not unlit rooms where attorneys may wander blindly about, hoping to stumble upon a reversible error." These words of Judge Humphreys, denying a 2016 child custody appeal, are cogent.2 Yet four months later, in another appeal, Judge Humphreys joined a unanimous decision overturning a com- mon provision in a custody order.3 In Bonhotel v. Watts, the Court of Appeals of Virginia held that judges cannot delegate judicial de- cision making power in child custody cases to outside profession- als. 4 This sounds obvious, but such delegation is actually ordered * Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Jeanette Family Law Clinic, University of Richmond School of Law, Richmond, Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Circuit Court
    The Circuit Court The circuit court is the trial court of general jurisdiction in Virginia, and the court has authority to try a full range of both civil and criminal cases. Civil cases involve disputes essentially private in nature between two or more parties; criminal cases are controversies between the Commonwealth and persons accused of a crime. Only in a circuit court is a jury provided for the trial of many of these disputes and controversies. The Virginia circuit court system is composed of 31 judicial circuits with 120 separate circuit courts in the various counties and cities of the Commonwealth. The Supreme Court of Virginia establishes the rules of practice and procedure for the circuit courts, and the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court serves as the administrator of the circuit court system. Judges and Clerks A circuit court judge is elected for an eight-year term by a majority vote of both houses of the General Assembly. If the General Assembly is not in session when a vacancy occurs, the Governor temporarily appoints a judge (interim appointment) to serve until the General Assembly meets again and can elect a judge for a full term. There are at least two judges serving each circuit and as many as 15 serving in larger circuits. The chief judge of the circuit is elected by majority vote of the judges serving the circuit. Circuit court judges are required to reside in the circuit they serve and must have been admitted to the Virginia Bar at least five years prior to election or appointment.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion, Russell W. Mason V. Christine Torrellas, No. 15-0726
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2016 Term _______________ FILED October 6, 2016 No. 15-0726 released at 3:00 p.m. _______________ RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA RUSSELL W. MASON, Executor of the Estate of Christine Ebert, Petitioner v. CHRISTINE TORRELLAS, Ancillary Administratrix of the Estate of Christine Ebert, Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mineral County The Honorable Phil Jordan, Judge Civil Action No. 15-C-9 REVERSED AND REMANDED ____________________________________________________________ Submitted: September 21, 2016 Filed: October 6, 2016 Daniel R. James, Esq. Charles F. Johns, Esq. Nicholas T. James, Esq. Denielle M. Stritch, Esq. Keyser, West Virginia Steptoe & Johnson PLLC Counsel for the Petitioner Bridgeport, West Virginia Counsel for the Respondent CHIEF JUSTICE KETCHUM delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. “‘The trial court, in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, should not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).” Syllabus Point 3, Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co. Inc., 160 W.Va. 530, 236 S.E.2d 207 (1977). 2. “Under Section 1, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States, the judgment or decree of a court of record of another state will be given full faith and credit in the courts of this State, unless it be clearly shown by pleading and proof that the court of such other state was without jurisdiction to render the same, or that it was procured through fraud.” Syllabus Point 1, in part, Clark v.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
    Case 1:16-cv-00107-FPS Document 42 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: <pageID> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BISON RESOURCES CORPORATION, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:16CV107 (STAMP) ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation and ANTERO RESOURCES APPALACHIAN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation and predecessor-in-interest to defendant Antero Resources Corporation, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND SCHEDULING STATUS AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE This is a dispute over the right to drill for natural gas relating to a set of oil and gas leases. The plaintiff, Bison Resources Corporation (“Bison Resources”), claims it holds rights of first refusal to drill relating to certain oil and gas leases. The defendants, Antero Resources Corporation and Antero Resources Appalachian Corporation (collectively “Antero”), allegedly drilled wells on the subject properties without first presenting Bison Resources with the opportunity to do so. Antero filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and for nonjoinder of an indispensable party under Rule 12(b)(7). After limited discovery regarding the nonjoinder issue, Antero seeks to withdraw its motion as to that issue and asserts only that Bison Resources fails to state a claim, Case 1:16-cv-00107-FPS Document 42 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: <pageID> arguing that the rights of first refusal were either not transferrable to Bison Resources or violate the rule against perpetuities and that Bison Resources should be judicially estopped from asserting its claims in this civil action.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Survey of Virginia Law - Civil Procedure and Practice William Hamilton Bryson University of Richmond, [email protected]
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Faculty Publications School of Law 1987 Annual Survey of Virginia Law - Civil Procedure and Practice William Hamilton Bryson University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation W. Hamilton Bryson, Annual Survey of Virginia Law - Civil Procedure and Practice, 21 U. Rich. L. Rev. 667 (1987). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CIVIL PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE W. Hamilton Bryson* This article considers recent developments in the field of Vir­ ginia civil procedure and practice, including statutes, rules of court, and opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia that have appeared between May 1986 and May 1987. This article also comments on cases in volumes five through eight of Virginia Circuit Court Opinions, many of which were decided before 1986. It is appropriate to men­ tion them here since they were only recently made generally avail­ able through publication. In order to facilitate the discussion of numerous Virginia Code sections, they will be referred to in the text by their section numbers only. I. APPEALS FROM DISTRICT COURTS In an appeal
    [Show full text]
  • Dis Ryy D Yr D R Di Y Di Ry D R Is Y Di R Sid R S R Sid Ry I
    The Journal of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, Discovery Gateway to Discovery Virginia Rule 4:1 only Volume 24 Number 4, 2013 by E. Stanley Murphy seems impenetrable. DIS 3 CO V E R Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 4 The Journal of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, Volume 24 Number 4, 2013 iscovery plays a critical role in issue the earliest forms of discovery abuse, raising sham formulation and truth seeking for even defenses solely for the purpose of obtaining an op- the simplest lawsuit. As trial lawyers ponent’s deposition.2 Dthough, we have an ambivalent relation- In 1938, recognizing the inadequacies of tradi- ship with the discovery process. It can be the most tional pleading methods, and concerned that the frustrating essential job we perform. outcome of trials often depended on the financial We love access to evidence that will support our resources of the parties rather than the merits of case but hate dealing with the Sisyphean problem the case, the U.S. Supreme Court promulgated the of prying meaningful discovery answers from our Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.3 opponents. We expect our adversaries to disclose The new federal rules were revolutionary. They their case but are naturally resistant to disclosing eliminated the last vestiges of common law plead- weaknesses in our own. We happily propound our ing and substituted the complimentary procedures own questions but groan about requests that often of notice pleading and expanded discovery. These seem too burdensome when directed to our clients. twin reforms constitute what the Supreme Court And the problem explodes in cases involving in- has called “one of the most significant innovations” stitutional defendants, many of whom have turned of modern procedural practice.4 Nine years after discovery obstruction into a business objective.
    [Show full text]
  • The Demurrer: a Pleading in Search of a New Identity in Virginia Courts
    Volume XVII, Number VII March 2016 The Demurrer: whether a pleading states a cause of action or whether a pleading fails to state claims upon which A Pleading in Search the relief demanded can be granted.3 Demurrers must state specifically the grounds on which the of a New Identity in pleading is insufficient. Moreover, if the ground Virginia Courts for challenging the pleading is not stated in the demurrer, the court will not consider it.4 by W. Bradford Stallard and P. Danielle Stone The demurrer occupies an even more important role in Virginia procedure as compared to other A delicate balance exists in our judicial system jurisdictions because, practically speaking, between protecting a plaintiff’s interest in receiving summary judgment is not realistically available in “their day in court” for meritorious claims and Virginia.5 Consequently, if a claim asserted at the protecting a defendant’s interest in disposing of pleading stage survives demurrer, there is a high unmeritorious claims without enduring the time- probability, bordering on certainty, that the case consuming and expensive prospect of full blown will be tried and ultimately submitted to a jury if the discovery and litigation. The important task of parties are unable to resolve their dispute outside protecting this delicate balance falls to our courts. court. For this reason, demurrers take on even It appears the Supreme Court of Virginia has greater significance in claims involving issues such recently taken sides, placing its thumb on one side as punitive damages. For example, if a punitive of the scales regarding an important procedural damages claim survives the pleading stage, the device known as the demurrer.
    [Show full text]
  • VIRGINIA Tort Profile
    2325 Dulles Corner Boulevard, Suite 1150, Herndon, VA / 703.793.1800 T / 703.793.0298 F www.fandpnet.com VIRGINIA Tort Profile ©Franklin & Prokopik. All rights reserved. (rev 2/2019) The Virginia Tort Law Profile is not intended to provide specific legal advice or opinions, but rather to provide general information. If you need additional information regarding Virginia law, or in relation to a specific claim, please do not hesitate to call upon us. (February 2019) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Overview of the Virginia Court System ...........................................................................1 A. Trial Courts ............................................................................................................1 1. General District Court ...............................................................................1 a. Small Claims Court........................................................................1 2. Circuit Court ..............................................................................................1 3. Reputation of Jurisdictions in Virginia ...................................................2 4. Arbitration / Mediation .............................................................................2 B. Appellate Courts ....................................................................................................2 1. The Virginia Court of Appeals .................................................................2 2. The Supreme Court of Virginia ................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • VIRGINIA: in the CIRCUIT COURT of RICHMOND CITY The
    VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RICHMOND CITY The Democratic Party of Virginia, Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR v. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND Christopher E. Piper, in his official PETITION FOR WRIT OF capacity as the Commissioner of the MANDAMUS Department of Elections; the Department of Elections; the Virginia State Board of Elections, James B. Alcorn in his official capacity as member of the State Board of Elections; Clara Belle Wheeler in her At Law No. _________________ official capacity as member of the State Board of Elections; and Singleton B. McAllister, in his official capacity as member of the State Board of Elections, Defendants. Plaintiff the Democratic Party of Virginia (the “Party”), by and through the undersigned attorneys, for its Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandamus, alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Article 1, Section 6 of the Virginia Constitution provides that, in the Commonwealth, “all men . have the right of suffrage.” The affirmative guarantee of the right to vote, however, means nothing if a candidate can qualify for the ballot based on fraud, and injured members of the electorate (and the political parties that they form and with which they associate) are denied any meaningful recourse. As the Supreme Court of Virginia has long recognized, “the perpetuity of our institutions and the preservation of the liberty of the people depend upon honest and fair elections; and the highest public policy requires that the laws should be so framed and administered as to secure fair elections.” Booker v. Donohoe, 95 Va. 359, 367-68 (1897).
    [Show full text]