While most of us are breathing sighs of relief that we aren’t practicing election law, take a moment to note some recent decisions.

Supreme Court of Virginia:

In Jared Ryan Jenkins v. Va. State Bar, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued a published opinion affirming a disciplinary sanction for an attorney. The facts are interesting but it is not (hopefully!) relevant to the majority of us.

Criminal lawyers may find King v. Commonwealth worth a read. Here, the SCV affirmed the defendant’s conviction for felony unauthorized use of a vehicle in violation of Va. Code Section 18.2-102. The defense alleged the Commonwealth hadn’t proven that the defendant lacked consent to drive the car from someone with proper legal title. The SCV stopped short of defining ownership, determining that under the facts here that the evidence was sufficient. But criminal lawyers may be able to argue in future cases that the definition of ownership is not fully resolved.

But the most interesting SCV case is an unpublished order: Windset Capital Corp., v. Thomas Debosky. The issue revolved around a signature defect in a counsel-filed pleading and whether the document was void or merely voidable (and therefore not subject to collateral attack). If you feel uncertain about the outer confines of what renders something void ab initio–you are not alone! Both Justice Powell and Justice Goodwyn dissented, asserting the code allowed counsel to cure the defect and the unsigned pleading was not a nullity. 

If you have time, don’t forget to tune in to oral arguments this week!

Court of Appeals: Selective Opinions

In Tysons Corner Hotel Plaza LLC v. Fairfax County, the CAV issued a published opinion concerning Fairfax County’s tax assessments and whether the assessments were based on fair market value, whether the county violated generally accepted appraisal practices, and whether the assessments were nonuniform.

Employment lawyers may want to take note of Shifflett v. Hill, involving a terminated police officer’s grievance proceedings. Va. Code Section 15.2-1507 allows either party to raise the other’s alleged failure to “comply with all substantial procedural requirements of the grievance procedure…without just cause.” The CAV determined that, when this is appealed to Circuit Court, such reviews are limited to examining procedure and the statute’s provision did not extend to reviewing other constitutional, statutory, and personnel policy arguments. The CAV also determined that the compliance review order constitutes a final appealable order subject to independent review (despite the fact that the grievance process otherwise remained ongoing).

In Grimaldo v. Commonwealth, the defense tactic of “less is more” in voir dire led to appellate victory. The Court of Appeals emphasized that it is the trial court’s responsibility to ensure that jurors are free from bias, and a defendant is entitled to his or her impartial jury. When a juror gives only equivocal responses about their ability to be fair and impartial, any doubt is supposed to be resolved in the defendant’s favor, and the juror in this case should have been struck. Sometimes it pays not to ask additional questions!

In Wei Zeng v. Wang, the CAV analyzed a statute of limitations issue for fraud and constructive fraud claims. Pocket this for future use if this issue arises (and if you want more Va. Sup. Ct. R. 1:1 discussion…).

Want to chat about any of these issues? Contact me here.