Henry H. Whiting

The case concerned the constitutionality of a Virginia statute that shortened the tolling period for medical malpractice tort claims brought by minors compared to other infant tort claims. Plaintiff Taylor Willis, injured at age 15 by alleged malpractice in 1995, sued after reaching majority more than two years later; defendants raised the statute of limitations, and Willis argued the special rule violated due process, equal protection, and the ban on special laws. The trial court sustained the pleas, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that rational-basis review applied because no fundamental right was implicated. The court reasoned that the classification bore a reasonable relation to legitimate purposes of relieving an insurance availability crisis and eliminating stale infant malpractice claims.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case concerned a widow's claims against her late husband's estate for an elective share of the estate, a family allowance, and exempt property under Virginia statutes, which the executor opposed based on an antenuptial agreement executed before the marriage. The trial court granted summary judgment to the executor, ruling that the agreement waived the wife's rights to these claims, and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed. The court applied standard contract interpretation rules to the agreement's provisions stating that each party's separately owned or acquired property would remain individual and that their rights to each other's property acquired by operation of law would be fixed solely by the agreement. It concluded that the unambiguous language covered the statutory spousal rights at issue, which arise by operation of law upon death, without needing additional express references to death or estates.

family lawproperty

This case involved a lawsuit by Deborah L. Bean against her former attorney Marjorie A. O'Connell alleging professional negligence, actual and constructive fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty stemming from O'Connell's representation of Bean in a Virginia divorce action. Bean served process on the Secretary of the Commonwealth under the long-arm statute but obtained a default judgment on liability when O'Connell did not respond, followed by a jury award of compensatory and punitive damages. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the judgment, ruling that the service was invalid because the affidavit failed to include O'Connell's last known address as required by Code § 8.01-329, so the court lacked personal jurisdiction and the default orders were void. The court further held that punitive damages could not be awarded because the fiduciary breach and constructive fraud claims arose from the implied terms of the parties' contract rather than an independent willful tort.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Livingston Pritchett, III, who was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, and related firearm offenses after confessing to killing Estel Darnell Singleton, Sr. Pritchett challenged the trial court's exclusion of expert psychological testimony regarding his mental retardation (IQ of 69), limited communication skills, and susceptibility to suggestive police questioning, arguing it affected the reliability of his confession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court of Virginia held that while one portion of the expert testimony improperly commented on the veracity of the confession and was correctly excluded, the balance of the testimony on the defendant's mental disorder and its hypothetical effects should have been admitted as it did not invade the jury's role. The court reversed in part, finding the error was not harmless, and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In Barrett v. Commonwealth, the defendant appealed his convictions for operating a vehicle as a habitual offender and assaulting a police officer, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike a prospective juror for cause. The juror was the brother of a police officer who testified for the Commonwealth, and during voir dire the juror gave equivocal answers about whether he would give greater weight to his brother's testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, but the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion because the family relationship and the circumstances made it unlikely that the public would have confidence in the integrity of the jury selection process. The judgments were reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved consolidated personal injury suits brought by two children who were scalded by hot tea served at a religious ceremony hosted by a Hindu organization known as Rajdhani Mandir. The plaintiffs sued the catering restaurant Mehak, Inc. and its co-owners, who had provided the food and service without charge as a donation; the defendants raised pleas in bar asserting charitable immunity. The trial court sustained the pleas after finding that the defendants were engaged in the charity's work without compensation. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, holding that the restaurant and its owners were not entitled to the charity's immunity because they were acting on behalf of the restaurant in making its donation rather than as agents or servants directly performing the charity's work, consistent with precedents in Moore v. Warren and Mooring v. Virginia Wesleyan College.

torts & liabilityreligious liberty