Tuesday, March 03, 2015
Speedy trial violation in Buchanan County attempted murder case
In Com. v. Keen, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling by Judge Vanover dismissing the felony charges brought against Ms. Keen for violation of her speedy trial rights. On the Commonwealth's appeal, the Court in an unpublished opinion by Judge Petty held that the Commonwealth had failed to account for significant periods of time in the history of the case.
Monday, March 02, 2015
Latest batch of opinions focuses on the law of lawyering
In its decisions issued on Friday, the Virginia Supreme Court dealt with the timeliness of a prisoner's collateral attack on his conviction based on involving prosecutorial misconduct in the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence (Hicks v. Director), the liability of a lawyer for the wrongful death of a process server that he hired to serve what proved to be a dangerous person (Brown v. Jacobs), what damages are recoverable in a legal malpractice case and whether an attorney is negligent in failing to anticipate changes in the law (Smith v. McLaughlin), who the lawyer needs to be name as a party to a zoning appeal (Frace v. Johnson), what attorney fees are recoverable on a motion for sanctions under Va. Code 8.01-271.1 (E.E. Mart F.C. v. Delyon), how to preserve error related to the denial of leave to amend (Roop v. Whitt), and the failure of defense counsel to advise a criminal defendant about the effect of his plea bargain on his immigration status (Zemene v. Clarke). Also, in two cases, the opinion writers addressed the effect in Virginia courts of determinations in the federal courts, in Toghill v. Com. and Cowser-Griffin v. Griffin.
Just reading every one of those opinions ought to be enough to fulfill the ethics CLE hours for the year, but here is the gist:
In Hicks, the Court held that the failure to disclose exculpatory material is the basis for tolling the statute of limitations under Va. Code 8.01-229(D), but the petitioner in that case could not prove that the exculpatory material was important enough to justify relief.
In Brown, the Court held that there was no legal relationship between the process server and the lawyer who hired him that would justify the imposition of tort liability on the lawyer for the criminal acts of someone else.
In Smith, the Court held that the lawyer is not liable for failure to anticipate changes in the law, and that non-pecuniary damages are not recoverable in a legal malpractice case.
In Frace, the Court held that special rules apply to a zoning appeal in naming the necessary parties, and the board of supervisors and not the board of zoning appeals was the necessary party to be joined and served under the certiorari statute as amended in 2010, and the omission of the necessary party could not be cured outside the appeal period.
In Roop, the Court held that the plaintiff had failed to preserver error related to the denial of his motion for leave to amend, where the record did not show "how the amendment would alter the pleading upon which the circuit court had ruled."
In E.E. Mart, the Court held that the sanctions under section 8.01-271.1 could not include attorney fees for prior litigation in another state.
In Zemene, the Court held that the circuit court applied the wrong standard in assessing the petitioner's claim of "prejudice" in connection with the failure to inform him about the effects on his immigration status.
In Toghill, the various opinions rejected the Fourth Circuit's decision on the facial invalidity of Virginia's anti-sodomy statute, and disagreed as to whether it even matter that the the Fourth Circuit had taken up the issue after the defendant's trial.
In Cowser-Griffin, Justice Millette in a dissenting opinion joined by Chief Justice Lemons and Senior Justice Koontz concluded that the Court of Appeals erred in its conclusion on a federal law question pertaining to the vesting of survivor benefits under a QDRO.
Just reading every one of those opinions ought to be enough to fulfill the ethics CLE hours for the year, but here is the gist:
In Hicks, the Court held that the failure to disclose exculpatory material is the basis for tolling the statute of limitations under Va. Code 8.01-229(D), but the petitioner in that case could not prove that the exculpatory material was important enough to justify relief.
In Brown, the Court held that there was no legal relationship between the process server and the lawyer who hired him that would justify the imposition of tort liability on the lawyer for the criminal acts of someone else.
In Smith, the Court held that the lawyer is not liable for failure to anticipate changes in the law, and that non-pecuniary damages are not recoverable in a legal malpractice case.
In Frace, the Court held that special rules apply to a zoning appeal in naming the necessary parties, and the board of supervisors and not the board of zoning appeals was the necessary party to be joined and served under the certiorari statute as amended in 2010, and the omission of the necessary party could not be cured outside the appeal period.
In Roop, the Court held that the plaintiff had failed to preserver error related to the denial of his motion for leave to amend, where the record did not show "how the amendment would alter the pleading upon which the circuit court had ruled."
In E.E. Mart, the Court held that the sanctions under section 8.01-271.1 could not include attorney fees for prior litigation in another state.
In Zemene, the Court held that the circuit court applied the wrong standard in assessing the petitioner's claim of "prejudice" in connection with the failure to inform him about the effects on his immigration status.
In Toghill, the various opinions rejected the Fourth Circuit's decision on the facial invalidity of Virginia's anti-sodomy statute, and disagreed as to whether it even matter that the the Fourth Circuit had taken up the issue after the defendant's trial.
In Cowser-Griffin, Justice Millette in a dissenting opinion joined by Chief Justice Lemons and Senior Justice Koontz concluded that the Court of Appeals erred in its conclusion on a federal law question pertaining to the vesting of survivor benefits under a QDRO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)