John Charles Thomas

The case involved the Russell County School Board’s decision to dismiss teacher Stephen Anderson after a fact-finding panel recommended against it, based on findings that Anderson had suggested inappropriate skits involving lynching and Nazi themes, instructed students on making a Molotov cocktail, discussed guns and bombs, used disparaging language toward colleagues, and made threatening remarks about school administrators. The trial court reversed the Board’s dismissal, but the Virginia Supreme Court reversed that ruling, holding that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Court reasoned that the Board properly determined the conduct was unprofessional, inappropriate for the students’ age level, and inconsistent with a teacher’s role as a model of civil discourse, and that the trial court had improperly substituted its judgment for the Board’s. The Court emphasized school boards’ authority to protect students from unsuitable language and behavior.

labor & employment

Buchanan was tried and convicted by a jury of capital murder for killing his father, two half-brothers, and stepmother during the same transaction on September 15, 1987, along with separate first-degree murder convictions for each victim and firearm offenses, resulting in a death sentence plus multiple life terms and fourteen years imprisonment. The Supreme Court of Virginia consolidated appeals from the capital and non-capital convictions and reviewed claims regarding the adequacy of indictments for notice, limits on voir dire, denial of second-degree murder instructions, sufficiency of verdicts, and double jeopardy. The court affirmed the capital murder conviction and death sentence while modifying and affirming the remaining convictions, concluding that the indictments and trial procedures were proper and the evidence supported the jury's findings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved grandchildren suing their grandparents' lawyers for alleged legal malpractice in preparing estate plans and wills, claiming the errors caused them to lose remainder interests in trusts, incur higher taxes, and suffer other economic losses totaling over $3 million. The trial court sustained the lawyers' demurrer, and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege privity with the lawyers or that they were intended third-party beneficiaries of the contract between the grandparents and the firm. The court reasoned that the claims were solely for economic loss without a direct attorney-client relationship regarding the estates, that preparing answers in related probate proceedings did not create privity for the malpractice claims, and that the motion for judgment did not properly plead a contract intended to benefit the plaintiffs. Additional complaints about tax advice and distributions were rejected for the same lack of privity or contractual basis.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

This negligence case arose from a fatal collision at an intersection in New Kent County, Virginia, where a vehicle driven by Stewart failed to yield and was struck by a tractor-trailer driven by Critzer. The plaintiff, as administratrix of the decedent's estate, sued both drivers and the truck owner for concurring negligence but settled with Stewart, leaving the case against Critzer and his employer. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the trial court granted a motion to strike, finding insufficient proof of negligence by Critzer. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, holding that the evidence, viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, could allow reasonable jurors to find that Critzer failed to maintain a proper lookout, reasonable speed, or proper control despite warning signs and the visible approaching vehicle. The court rejected the argument that Critzer's right of way excused any duty of ordinary care and remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from a multi-vehicle highway collision in which Koutsounadis sued England for personal injuries, alleging that England's negligence in falling asleep at the wheel, striking another car, and leaving his disabled and unlit vehicle in the left lane proximately caused the subsequent crash. The trial court granted a motion in limine that barred evidence of England's prior accident and his guilty plea to reckless driving, effectively limiting the negligence claim to England's conduct after his car had come to rest. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that proximate causation presented a jury question because England's initial negligence had placed his vehicle in a dangerous position that others could foreseeably strike, and no intervening event severed the causal chain. The Court further ruled that Virginia Code § 8.01-418 required admission of the guilty plea arising from the same occurrence. The matter was remanded for a new trial consistent with these holdings.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether a probationary teacher could recover money damages after a school board failed to provide the statutory notice of nonrenewal required by Virginia Code § 22.1-304. The teacher had received a one-year contract with explicit notice that it was temporary, received negative evaluations, and never got the required written notice by April 15, but instead of seeking a new contract she sued for damages after being denied reemployment. The trial court awarded her approximately $15,000 in damages, but the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed. The Court held that the statute creates both the right to notice and the exclusive remedy of entitlement to a contract for the next year, and that money damages are not available when the statute specifies only that remedy. Because the teacher never pursued a contract through litigation and sought only damages, the judgment in her favor was reversed and final judgment entered for the school board.

labor & employment