Jackson L. Kiser

This case arose from a fire at a Super 8 motel started in the room of David Byers, a manager-in-training for Ham’s Restaurants, Inc., a subsidiary of Chelda, Inc., while Byers was staying there at the company’s expense during his training program. Hotel owners sued Chelda, Ham’s, and Byers for negligence and resulting damages, seeking to impose vicarious liability on the companies. The court granted summary judgment to Chelda on the ground that Byers was not its employee, but denied summary judgment to Ham’s because material factual disputes existed over whether Byers was acting within the course and scope of employment when the fire occurred. The ruling rested on evidence that Ham’s required and paid for Byers’ lodging as part of training, alongside conflicting accounts about his work schedule, the fire’s cause, and termination reasons.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

In this case, defendant Anthony Charles Brown was arrested in 1999 for possessing cocaine base and initially charged by federal authorities with possessing with intent to distribute more than five grams, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). After Brown became a fugitive, a superseding indictment was filed in 2008 alleging fifty grams or more of the substance and referencing the corresponding penalty provision in § 841(b)(1)(A). Brown moved to dismiss the superseding indictment as barred by the five-year statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3282, arguing that the new charge did not relate back to the original indictment. The court denied the motion, holding that the superseding indictment related back because it was based on the same facts and did not broaden the charges or deprive Brown of notice, as the original indictment already encompassed the possibility of proving a higher drug quantity.

criminal lawprocedure

Patsy Bryant, a female employee at Yorktowne Cabinetry, sued the company under Title VII alleging sex discrimination for failing to promote her to a Line Lead position and for terminating her after she altered company time-attendance records. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on both claims. Bryant did not establish a prima facie case for the promotion denial because she lacked a college degree that the employer required for the role and offered no evidence that the requirement was pretextual. On the termination claim, Bryant admitted to changing the records, which constituted a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for firing her, and she failed to show that the stated reason was a pretext for discrimination or that similarly situated male employees were treated differently.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act brought by the estate of Rennie Hunt against the City of Danville, alleging that police officers failed to provide reasonable accommodations to Hunt, a qualified individual with a disability, during a hostage investigation and that the department failed to adequately train its officers. After discovery on remand from the Fourth Circuit, the district court addressed the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that exigent circumstances in the hostage situation relieved officers of any duty to accommodate under the ADA and that a failure-to-train claim was incompatible with the statute's requirement of an actual exclusion from or denial of services by reason of disability. The court further noted that Hunt's threat to an officer's life was a superseding cause of the events leading to his death.

civil rightscriminal law

This case involved an appeal by National Emergency Services (NES) from a bankruptcy court dismissal of its adversary complaint seeking to equitably subordinate the claims of creditor Buddy E. Williams under 11 U.S.C. § 510(c) in the chapter 11 bankruptcy of R.J. Reynolds—Patrick County Memorial Hospital. The underlying bankruptcy case was set to be dismissed upon resolution of this matter, meaning no assets would be distributed from the estate. The district court affirmed the dismissal, holding that equitable subordination applies only to reorder claims for purposes of distributing estate assets, so NES could obtain no relief. The court further reasoned that equitable subordination generally requires creditor misconduct under the Mobile Steel test, and NES had not alleged such misconduct or justified a new exception to that requirement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a contract dispute between CPFilms, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Virginia that manufactures solar control films, and Best Window Tinting, a California corporation, along with its officers, over unpaid amounts for delivered products under a credit agreement and dealer arrangement. The plaintiff originally filed suit in Virginia state court seeking $75,000 in damages, after which the defendants removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, ruling that attorney's fees expressly provided for in the credit agreement as collection costs constitute a substantive right that may be included in the amount in controversy. Because these fees, when added to the claimed damages, exceed the $75,000 threshold under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction were satisfied and removal was proper.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a minister who sued his church for breach of contract after the church allegedly terminated his employment without following the notice and voting procedures specified in its bylaws. The church moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the First Amendment and the Virginia Constitution bar civil courts from reviewing clergy employment decisions by religious organizations. The court denied the motion, holding that it could exercise jurisdiction because the dispute centered on whether the church had followed its own secular procedural rules for termination, which could be resolved using neutral principles of contract law without inquiring into religious doctrine or governance.

religious libertyprocedurelabor & employment

This case involved plaintiff Stephanie Hall's slip-and-fall injury claim against Wal-Mart after she fell on a liquid spill in a store aisle; she alleged she overheard a manager's walkie-talkie conversation indicating the spill should have been cleaned earlier. After a jury trial, the district court granted Wal-Mart's motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of plaintiff's evidence, finding insufficient proof that the statement was made by an authorized agent. Plaintiff then moved for a new trial under Rule 59, arguing that defense counsel's opening statement had clearly admitted the disputed facts about the speaker and statement, creating a judicial admission that relieved her of the need to introduce evidence on those points. The court agreed, holding that the opening statement constituted an unambiguous judicial admission under Fourth Circuit precedent, making the grant of judgment as a matter of law an error of law, and therefore granted the motion for a new trial while mooting plaintiff's alternative arguments.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision in an adversary proceeding brought by debtor Active Wear against creditor Parkdale Mills. Active Wear sought to avoid as a preferential transfer the return of unused yarn to Parkdale shortly before an involuntary Chapter 7 petition was filed and to recover the value of that yarn under 11 U.S.C. §§ 547 and 550. The bankruptcy court ruled that Active Wear could recover only the liquidation value of the yarn ($27,459), and the district court affirmed that holding. The court reasoned that precedent, including Virginia National Bank v. Woodson, requires assigning the value the debtor could have obtained in a liquidation sale rather than the higher amount the creditor might realize upon resale, as the latter would improperly credit the debtor with the creditor's post-return efforts and expertise.

business & regulatory

In Milam v. Barnhart, the plaintiff received $41,538.70 in Social Security disability benefits after successful litigation in federal court, and the attorney sought court approval under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for a contingent fee of $9,846 (25% of past-due benefits minus amounts already paid for administrative work). The magistrate judge recommended awarding the full requested amount after calculating an effective hourly rate that included time spent at the agency level. The district court rejected that recommendation, finding the magistrate's strict mathematical approach improper under Fourth Circuit precedent in Mudd v. Barnhart because it did not use agency time merely as one factor to assess overall reasonableness. Instead, the court awarded $6,300 for the 12.6 hours of court-related work, determining this amount reasonable given the case complexity, the attorney's experience, and the parties' fee agreement while noting the attorney had already received separate compensation for agency representation.

procedure

The case involves defendant Charles Cotton seeking to appeal the denial of his motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), after the Fourth Circuit remanded solely to assess whether his untimely notice of appeal qualified as excusable neglect under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Cotton's August 2004 letter explained that he filed a motion for reconsideration on February 11, 2004, followed by the notice of appeal on March 8, 2004, outside the ten-day deadline, but offered no other basis for the delay. The court found no excusable neglect, denied the reconsideration motions for lack of demonstrated error in the original ruling, and declined to treat the claims as a successive § 2255 motion absent required Fourth Circuit certification.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Roger Phelps alleging that defendant Robert Woodall Chevrolet, Inc. violated the Truth in Lending Act by misclassifying a $283 charge for an Automotive Theft Protection plan as part of the amount financed rather than as a finance charge in connection with a car purchase, resulting in inaccurate disclosures of the finance charge, annual percentage rate, and amount financed. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the plan constituted a warranty rather than insurance. The court denied the motion after converting it from a motion to dismiss, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the plan shifted the risk of vehicle theft from the buyer to a third party, which would make it insurance requiring different TILA disclosures.

business & regulatory

The case involved a request by the plaintiff's attorney for court approval of a contingent fee equal to 25% ($8,641.50) of the plaintiff's $34,566 Social Security disability award, after the attorney spent 43.65 hours at the agency level and 6.14 hours at the court level. The court sustained the Commissioner's objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation and awarded only $6,000 in fees. The reasoning centered on the statutory division in 42 U.S.C. § 406, which assigns authority over agency-level fees to the Commissioner and limits district courts to awarding fees only for judicial proceedings; the court therefore excluded administrative time from its calculation and reduced the amount to avoid an unreasonable windfall based on the limited court hours, while noting the attorney could petition the agency separately.

procedurefederal power

The case concerned U.S. Cellular's challenge to the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors' denial of a special use permit to construct a 240-foot lattice wireless telecommunications tower on agricultural land along a ridgeline to fill coverage gaps along Route 8. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on claims arising under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires local zoning decisions to be supported by substantial evidence in a written record, and related Virginia state law governing legislative zoning actions. The court granted each motion in part and denied each in part after reviewing the application materials, the county's comprehensive plan and siting preferences, and the administrative record. It held that the denial complied with the federal substantial-evidence requirement but implicated limits on local authority under Virginia precedent, while rejecting certain constitutional and abstention arguments.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

This case involves a wrongful death action brought by the mother of a college student who committed suicide after an incident at Ferrum College, where the student had been counseled following threats of self-harm. The plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to add new defendants (a counselor and his employer) and reinstate a previously dismissed defendant, as well as to add a claim for punitive damages against all parties. The court granted the motion to add the punitive damages claim but denied the requests to add or reinstate defendants. The decision turned on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which allows amendments to relate back to the original filing date only under specific conditions, including when there is a mistake concerning the identity of a party; here, the plaintiff had not made such a mistake but rather sought to add new parties after the statute of limitations had expired.

proceduretorts & liability

This case was a wrongful death action brought by the estate of Michael Frentzel, a Ferrum College freshman who died by suicide, against the college, its dean of student affairs, and a resident assistant. The complaint alleged negligence in failing to take adequate steps to prevent the suicide after the defendants learned of Frentzel's threats, self-inflicted injuries, and notes indicating suicidal intent, despite having required him to attend anger management counseling. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss as to Ferrum College and the dean, ruling that the plaintiff had stated a claim because the allegations showed a special relationship creating a duty to protect Frentzel and that his suicide would not bar recovery if he was of unsound mind at the time. The claim against the resident assistant was dismissed for insufficient facts showing her involvement or duty, and the court granted leave to file an amended complaint to address jurisdiction and capacity issues. The decision rested on Virginia tort law precedents regarding duties arising from custodial or special relationships and the effect of suicide on negligence claims.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Richard Hancock's appeal of the Social Security Commissioner's decision granting him disability benefits only for a closed period from September 30, 1994, to November 2, 1995, following a car accident that caused multiple injuries. Hancock challenged the termination date, arguing his disabilities persisted beyond that point based on his testimony and medical evidence regarding pain and limitations. The court sustained some of his objections to the magistrate's report, reversed the Commissioner's decision, and remanded the case to the Administrative Law Judge for reconsideration of the evidence, particularly regarding Hancock's residual functional capacity and the vocational expert's testimony.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

Linear Products sued Marotech for infringing two U.S. patents on high-speed packaging tape used in carton manufacturing, seeking a preliminary injunction; a parallel suit on nearly identical Canadian patents had already gone to trial in Quebec. Marotech moved to stay the U.S. proceedings under the doctrine of international abstention and to reset the scheduled July 2002 trial date. The court denied the stay motion, finding that comity and abstention principles did not require deference where the foreign case had not reached judgment and the patents were territorially limited, but granted a continuance of at least sixty days to allow the Canadian trial to conclude. The decision rested on the district court's inherent discretion to manage its docket and the absence of any statute mandating a stay.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this product liability case, plaintiff Michael Hambrick, then a minor, sued Ken-Bar Manufacturing Company after sustaining permanent injuries when the Model D-680 fun kart he was riding as a passenger overturned on a dirt path in 1998. He alleged breach of implied warranty of fitness, negligent product design, and negligent manufacture, pointing to features such as the brush bar with exposed U-bolts, inadequate padding, and lack of passenger restraints. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence of design defects or causation under applicable standards. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff's expert testimony on consumer expectations, survey data, and alternative design evidence created genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the kart was unreasonably dangerous and whether the defects proximately caused the injury.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved charges against Michael Fulcher, his mother Ethel, and his wife Rosanna for drug and money laundering conspiracies related to smuggling marijuana into a Virginia prison, where the defendants claimed they acted with the implied permission of law enforcement as part of a public authority or sting operation defense. After the Fourth Circuit affirmed an order for a new trial, the Government moved on remand to reinstate the original jury convictions based on additional evidence or, alternatively, to exclude statements from DEA Agent Donald Lincoln. The court denied the motion to reinstate the verdict and overruled the motion in limine, holding that the Lincoln evidence was admissible because it was relevant to the defendants' public authority defense, their mistake of fact defense, and their claims of past cooperation with federal agents that could support implied ratification or acquiescence by the Government. The reasoning centered on agency principles under which the agents' course of dealing with the Fulchers and similar informants could establish implied authority, making the evidence probative for retrial.

criminal lawprocedure