Thomas C. Gordon

This case involved mutual claims for intentional personal injuries arising from a 1967 confrontation in a Newport News poolroom where owner Louis Parker asked police officer Herbert McCoy to leave during a routine check, leading to Parker's arrest for disorderly conduct, a physical struggle involving a blackjack and pool cue, and a jury verdict awarding McCoy $35,000 in damages. The court upheld the trial judge's exclusion of evidence that the disorderly conduct charge against Parker had been nol prossed, as well as rulings confirming that McCoy had a legal right to remain on the premises and was not a trespasser. However, the court reversed and remanded because certain jury instructions improperly suggested approval of the officer's use of force, borrowed inapplicable negligence concepts, or addressed issues not raised by the evidence. The core reasoning distinguished an officer's law-based authority to enter and remain from a private citizen's consensual right, while requiring neutral instructions that left the reasonableness of force to the jury.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Tyrone Williams's conviction for breaking and entering a store with intent to steal, based solely on fingerprint evidence found on a stolen television set. No witnesses identified Williams as a participant, and he testified that he had visited the store legitimately one or two days earlier to examine TVs. The court reversed the conviction, holding that the fingerprint evidence was insufficient because it did not exclude the reasonable possibility that the prints were left during Williams's prior lawful visit to the showroom. This distinguished the case from prior precedent where fingerprints were found in areas not accessible to the public.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether provisions in the will of Anne White Bailey, which created a 25-year trust for the education of named grandnephews and grandnieces with remainder interests to them or their heirs upon termination, violated the rule against perpetuities. The trial court found the alternative contingent gifts to heirs and distributees void under the rule but upheld the direct interests of the living beneficiaries. On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the interests of beneficiary John Henry White were valid, as any vesting must occur during his lifetime as a life in being at the testatrix's death, satisfying the requirement that interests vest within twenty-one years and ten months after a life in being. The court also decided to adjudicate the remainders immediately rather than deferring, citing principles of virtual representation to bind potential unborn parties.

propertyfamily law

In Johnson v. Commonwealth, students at a state college were denied permission to hold a protest vigil in the administration building under college regulations and were arrested and convicted of trespass after refusing to leave when ordered by officials. On appeal from their convictions under the state trespass statute, the defendants argued that the statute did not apply to public property and that their First Amendment rights protected their presence in the building. The court held that the trespass statute applies to publicly owned property other than thoroughfares, relying on precedent from Miller v. Harless, and that the students had no constitutional right to demonstrate specifically in Wilson Hall, as the regulation concerned the place of protest rather than prohibiting protest activity itself.

criminal lawfree speech

Jerry Leeds sued Shenandoah Valley Leasing Corporation and Helen C. Rice to recover amounts allegedly due under an airplane lease agreement, while Shenandoah cross-claimed to rescind the lease on grounds of mistake or constructive fraud and recover prior payments made. The trial court allowed rescission based on constructive fraud, but the appellate court reversed, ruling that the lease agreement explicitly placed responsibility for the airplane's condition on the lessee, who had accepted it in its then-present state and agreed to hold the lessor harmless for later-discovered defects. The court further held that Shenandoah waived any claim based on the registration certificate error by failing to act before it was corrected and that the parties' assumption of risk under the lease barred rescission. The decree was reversed and remanded for entry of a money judgment against the lessee and guarantor.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Clere v. Commonwealth, defendant Henry Lee Clere was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing Thomas A. McKown. On appeal, he challenged the admission of a witness's out-of-court statements and items seized from his home and his wife's car during police searches authorized by warrants. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that a prior consistent statement by the witness was properly admitted after her testimony had been impeached with a prior inconsistent statement, as the consistent statement was relevant to assessing the inconsistent one. The court also upheld the seizure of additional items because the searches of the home and car occurred simultaneously, with no evidence that officers had already found the specified scarf before discovering the other evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death action brought by the administrator of a wife killed in a car accident against her husband, who was driving, and a third-party driver. The trial court had sustained the husband's demurrer based on interspousal immunity, dismissing the claim against him. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, holding that the common-law rule barring a wife from suing her husband for personal torts, as previously applied in Keister and Furey, no longer applied to automobile accident cases. The court reasoned that the traditional justifications for immunity had diminished given widespread liability insurance and that the dynamic nature of the common law required updating the rule to reflect modern conditions, consistent with its recent abrogation of parental immunity in similar cases. The court remanded for new trials on liability issues against both defendants.

family lawtorts & liability

The case concerned a challenge by residents and landowners in Henrico County's Sanitary Districts to a 1968 contract between the County and the Districts that unified their separate water supply and sewerage systems into a single 'System' operated by the County, transferred District assets and revenues to the County, had the County assume operational responsibilities and bond payments, and required Districts to levy ad valorem taxes if revenues proved insufficient. The trial court upheld the contract, but the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed and remanded. The court reasoned that the agreement exceeded the County's authority because it effectively imposed county debt without the voter approval required by Section 115a of the Virginia Constitution, as the County assumed District bond obligations and pledged to set rates and apply revenues countywide while Districts retained contingent tax-levying duties. The opinion emphasized that the contract's structure circumvented constitutional limits on county indebtedness by integrating the systems and shifting financial responsibilities without electoral consent.

business & regulatorytaxesproperty

The case involved the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company filing new intrastate rate schedules with the Virginia State Corporation Commission, which accepted the filings as automatically effective without holding a full hearing, taking evidence on the record, or explicitly approving or prescribing the rates. The Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County appealed, arguing that the Commission lacked authority to allow the rates to take effect in this manner. The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the state constitution requires the Commission to prescribe rates for transmission companies such as telephone utilities, that the relevant code provisions allowing automatic effectiveness do not apply, and that the Commission's mere acceptance of the filings without findings of fact did not satisfy the constitutional mandate. The court therefore vacated the Commission's December 22, 1969 decision and remanded the proceeding.

business & regulatory

The case involved defendants Owens and Ferguson, who were convicted under Virginia statutes for remaining at the site of an unlawful assembly after police ordered dispersal during a 1968 Charlottesville disturbance involving property damage. They appealed on First Amendment grounds, arguing the statutes impermissibly restricted protected assembly rights. The court held the statutory definition of unlawful assembly in Va. Code Ann. § 18.1-254.1(c) unconstitutionally overbroad, as it criminalized peaceable gatherings based solely on participants' subjective intent or purpose without requiring any clear and present danger of violence, riot, or disorder. This definition departed from common-law standards and failed to meet the strict justification needed to limit assembly rights under precedents like Cantwell v. Connecticut and Thomas v. Collins. Consequently, the convictions were reversed because they may have rested on the invalid provision.

free speechcriminal lawcivil rights

The case concerned whether an illegitimate child could share in the proceeds of a wrongful death settlement for her father under Virginia law. The decedent's illegitimate daughter, who had been acknowledged and partially supported by him, appealed after the trial court excluded her from the beneficiary class and distributed the net fund to the decedent's parents and siblings. The court reversed, holding that the term 'children' in the wrongful death statute includes illegitimate children. It relied on precedent interpreting the statute's purpose as compensating family members and dependents who suffered loss, rather than following rules of intestate distribution, and determined that the daughter as the sole first-class beneficiary was entitled to the fund.

family lawtorts & liability

The case concerned an order by Circuit Judge Sexton barring Municipal Judge Davis from practicing criminal law in the circuit court and removing him as counsel for a client facing felony charges, based on the prestige of Davis's judicial office. Petitioners Davis and his client sought a writ of mandamus to allow Davis to practice and continue the representation. The court awarded the writ, holding that statutes already regulate practice by judges of courts not of record but do not prohibit this activity, that Sexton's blanket rule added to those statutes and thus exceeded statutory rule-making authority under Code § 8-1.3, and that the prohibition was not justified by inherent judicial power absent specific evidence of a conflict of interest.

criminal lawprocedure

Plaintiff Richard Minton sued defendant Cecil Yeatts, a special game warden, for false imprisonment after Yeatts arrested him at night on a farm while Minton was checking the property with a shotgun and dogs in his truck. A jury awarded Minton $700, but on appeal the court reversed the judgment and entered final judgment for Yeatts. The court reasoned that Yeatts observed conduct giving him probable cause to believe Minton was committing the misdemeanor of illegal night hunting in his presence, authorizing a warrantless arrest under Virginia game laws. Because the arrest was lawful, Minton could not recover for false imprisonment.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

In Manley v. Commonwealth, the defendant was convicted of marijuana possession after police executed a search warrant and found the drug in his apartment; he moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the justice of the peace lacked authority to issue the warrant, the affidavit failed to establish probable cause under the Aguilar-Spinelli standards because it relied on an informant, the place to be searched was inadequately described in a multi-unit building, and the evidence was otherwise insufficient. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the conviction. It held that the authority issue was not preserved below, the affidavit met reliability requirements because the informant's statements were admissions against interest based on personal observation, the warrant sufficiently identified the apartment by naming the defendant as occupant, and the defendant's own statement that the marijuana was his supported the conviction.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved Carolyn Carneal's suit for divorce from James Carneal on grounds of constructive desertion or cruelty, in which the trial court granted her a divorce, custody of the children, and alimony and support, while denying James's cross-bill for divorce based on desertion. James appealed, first facing a motion to dismiss for late filing of the notice of appeal and assignments of error, which the court overruled after interpreting a May 17, 1968 trial court order as suspending the effectiveness of the April 29 decree until June 7, making the July 29 filings timely. On the merits, the court reviewed evidence of the couple's financial difficulties, the wife's move to a costlier residence, the husband's work habits and income, and allegations of inadequate support and refusal of sexual relations, ultimately reversing the trial court's grant of divorce and alimony to Carolyn and denial of relief to James, and remanding for a new decree.

family law

The case concerned a contract dispute between J.M. Turner & Company and Ward Delaney over the supply of sand and gravel for a Virginia highway project. Turner and Delaney entered into a December 1963 letter agreement under which Delaney would furnish approximately 12,000 cubic yards of material at a set price; after Delaney could not perform due to equipment and financial issues, the parties executed a July 1964 letter that altered payment terms for material removed from Delaney's premises. Delaney sued for payment under the later writing, while Turner counterclaimed for breach of the original quantity obligation, arguing the 1964 letter was merely a modification. The trial court ruled as a matter of law that the 1964 letter constituted a novation extinguishing the quantity term and entered summary judgment for Delaney. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, holding that novation is never presumed and must be proven, that the documents should be read together, and that ambiguities in the phrase "your material" required factual resolution by a jury rather than judicial construction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Eddie Henry was convicted by a jury of robbery and sentenced to ten years in prison. He appealed, challenging the admission into evidence of a pistol found during a warrantless search of a car in which he was a passenger, as well as pretrial identifications made by the victims. The court ruled that the search was lawful because it was conducted with the consent of Nathaniel Massey, who had possession and control of the vehicle. It further held that the in-court identifications were properly admitted and that any potential errors regarding the pretrial identifications were harmless given the strength of the other evidence supporting the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved whether a non-compete clause in an employment agreement between Servisoft, a water-softening company, and its former salesman Linville prevented him from operating his own competing business after termination. The trial court had enjoined Linville from engaging in any competitive business in specified Virginia cities until March 1971. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, holding that the agreement's post-employment restraint applied only to seeking or accepting employment with a competitor, not to operating as a sole proprietor, based on the specific language used and the requirement of strict construction against the employer.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

Lewis J. Northrop sued his broker, Francis I. duPont & Company, to recover the purchase price of shares in Interamerican Industries, Ltd., which he had bought on his own initiative through the firm. The purchases involved unregistered stock traded over-the-counter, and Northrop claimed liability under the Securities Act of 1933 for selling unregistered securities, failing to disclose the lack of registration, and common-law negligence; he also invoked the Virginia Securities Act. After Northrop presented his evidence, the trial court struck it and entered summary judgment for duPont. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the broker’s execution of the customer’s unsolicited orders fell squarely within the § 4(4) exemption for brokers’ transactions, so the registration requirements of § 5 did not apply and no disclosure duty arose from the mere fact of non-registration.

business & regulatory

This case involved a wrongful death suit brought by the administrator of Deborah Haymore against Janice Brizendine, the underage driver of the car in which Deborah was a passenger, and John Doe, an unknown driver of another vehicle allegedly involved in the fatal accident. The jury returned verdicts for both defendants, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Brizendine, holding that any error in excluding evidence of her lack of a driver's license was harmless, that the plaintiff waived objections to proceeding on a gross negligence theory by declining a new trial after a proposed amendment, and that the gross negligence instruction was proper. The court reversed the judgment for John Doe and remanded for a new trial, finding that an instruction allowing the jury to find for John Doe if his identity was known lacked evidentiary support.

torts & liabilityprocedure