This case involved a Virginia prison inmate of Cherokee descent who sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that prison officials violated his First Amendment rights by forcibly cutting his hair in accordance with Division of Institutional Services Guideline #864, despite his religious objections based on beliefs associated with the Sons of Jacob sect. The court determined that the plaintiff's religious convictions were sincere and had been practiced prior to incarceration. It held that the regulation infringed on protected religious liberty because the defendants failed to demonstrate a legitimate penological objective that could not be achieved through narrower means, such as allowing a ponytail. The court denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration and upheld its prior order granting relief to the plaintiff.
The case involved beneficiaries suing The Home Insurance Company to recover accidental death benefits under two life insurance policies after the insured died from asphyxiation during an autoerotic act involving a pulley and noose system. The insurer denied coverage, arguing the death resulted from an intentional self-inflicted injury excluded by the policy and citing precedent like Runge v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. The court, after reviewing extensive evidence including autopsy findings, scene photographs, and expert testimony showing a jammed fail-safe mechanism with no suicide indicators, determined the death was accidental rather than intentional or foreseeable. It held that the policy's exclusion did not apply because the harm stemmed from the unexpected malfunction, not the voluntary act itself, and Virginia law requires construing ambiguous insurance terms in favor of coverage. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs.
This § 1983 case arose from the plaintiff's arrest for driving while intoxicated and unreasonable refusal to take a breathalyzer test under Virginia law, during which she was denied an opportunity to consult counsel before deciding on the test and was later strip-searched upon commitment to custody. The plaintiff sought damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent policies denying counsel access in such situations and requiring strip searches of DWI detainees without individualized suspicion of contraband. The court dismissed the damages claim after trial and denied the request for injunctive relief, holding that there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel when deciding whether to submit to a breathalyzer test and that the strip search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to ensure jail security, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Bell v. Wolfish. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had been lawfully committed, the search was conducted privately for legitimate security purposes without punitive intent, and DWI is a jailable offense unlike minor traffic violations.
This case involved owners of beneficial interests in land trusts and a trustee who sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and three savings and loan associations. The plaintiffs aimed to prevent enforcement of 'due on sale' clauses in the deeds of trust after conveying properties into Virginia statutory land trusts and transferring beneficial interests to avoid triggering loan acceleration. The court declined to abstain in favor of parallel state proceedings and, after a hearing on the merits, found that the conveyances to the trusts constituted transfers of title that breached the clauses under federal law and regulations governing the loans. It ruled that the land trust device could not circumvent the lenders' contractual rights to accelerate payments and dismissed the federal suit without prejudice to state court claims.
Horst Nemetz petitioned for naturalization as a United States citizen. The Immigration and Naturalization Service recommended denial based on his admission of engaging in sexual relations with his male roommate since 1967, which constitutes sodomy under Virginia law. The court denied the petition, finding that Nemetz failed to establish he was a person of good moral character for the required five-year period. Sodomy is considered a crime involving moral turpitude under Virginia law, and the constitutionality of the state's sodomy statute had been upheld by the courts. Therefore, the petitioner did not meet the statutory requirements under 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3).
This case involved two nephrologists, Dr. Greenspan and Dr. Tolkan, who sought injunctive relief and damages after Greenspan's discharge from a dialysis center and Tolkan's subsequent resignation, claiming violations of antitrust laws and rights to practice at the Northern Virginia Dialysis Center (NVDC) owned by National Medical Care, Inc. The court bifurcated the claims and held an evidentiary hearing, ultimately denying the motion for a permanent injunction and dismissing the non-antitrust claims. The plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the antitrust counts. The core reasoning was that the doctors had no constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment to staff privileges at a specific private facility, the alleged bylaws were not validly adopted, their employment was at-will with cause for termination, and they were not prevented from practicing elsewhere.