Well-known Roanoke attorney disbarred for kiting checks

According to this report ("Roanoke attorney disbarred for check kiting," 4/24/04) in the Roanoke paper, attorney Sam Garrison has been disbarred for check-kiting.

Describing Garrison, the article says: "Garrison, 64, a former Roanoke commonwealth's attorney, U.S. vice presidential aide and Watergate counsel, has been one of the city's most legally adventurous lawyers. He has sometimes been one of its most troubled, too. In 1981, he gave up his law license after a federal embezzlement conviction. The Virginia Supreme Court reinstated the license 11 years ago." More recently, Garrison has been a leading advocate in Roanoke for gay rights issues, and recently represented a group of men arrested in a Roanoke park in a constitutional challenge to Virginia's sodomy laws.

Another circuit court judge drawing attention to herself?

This article ("Prosecutor cleared of contempt," 4/24/04) in the Fredericksburg paper makes the circuit court judge who brought contempt charges against a prosecutor, on which he was acquitted, out to be something of a problem, citing the views of some lawyers that the contempt charge was embarrassing and rumors that the judge has trouble getting along with others, including her brethren on the circuit court bench.

Va. Supreme Court takes on interlocutory appeal of immunity, limitations issues in water case

According to this report ("Tainted water case goes to Va. Supreme Court," 4/24/04) in the Norfolk paper, the Virginia Supreme Court has agreed to take on a pre-trial appeal of issues including sovereign immunity and the statute of limitations in a case brought by 213 plaintiffs against the City of Chesapeake for tainted city water.

I can't recall any other examples of the Supreme Court taking an appeal under the fairly new statute allowing appeals of interlocutory orders, Va. Code 8.01-670.1, passed in 2002, but this sure seems like a good case for doing so.

When does employee get lost wages even though employer never stopped paying him?

In Bullard v. Alfonso, an opinion by Senior Justice Carrico, the Virginia Supreme Court citing the collateral source rule held that the trial court erred in refusing to allow a personal injury plaintiff to seek lost wages at trial, when in fact the plaintiff's employer never stopped paying him during the six months he was unable to work.

No service under 8.01-288 unless notice of motion for judgment also received

One of the great and mysterious statutes in Title 8.01, the civil procedure volume of the Virginia Code, is Va. Code 8.01-288, regarding service of process. The Code establishes a hierarchy of methods for service of provides, each with its details and specifications, and then comes out in section 8.01-288 and says that the service of process is good if the defendant gets, no matter how or why. The result is that defense lawyers get antsy when their client sends them a fax of the suit papers - a courtesy copy perhaps, faxed or mailed by plaintiff's counsel - with the note that there has been "no service." Yet there are cases, and I have been in at least one, where that faxed pleading was indeed deemed to be served, when the issue came to court. See Doe v. Connors, 796 F. Supp. 214, 218-19 (W.D. Va. 1992) (papers faxed to office in Washington, D.C., deemed served under 8.01-288).

In Lifestar Response of Maryland, Inc. v. Vegosen, the Virginia Supreme Court confirmed at least that there can be no service under 8.01-288 unless the whole process is received, including the Virginia law equivalent of a summons, which in Lifestar and other law cases is a notice of motion for judgment under Rule 3:3.

Virginia Supreme Court upholds trespassing conviction on remand in Hicks

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, after being reversed, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the trespassing conviction of Kevin Hicks on the property of a public housing authority in Richmond, in Com. v. Hicks, an opinion written by Chief Justice Hassell.

The history of the case is this: Hicks was convicted in the City of Richmond
General District Court. He appealed the convictions to the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond where he was convicted. He appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals. A panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, Hicks v.
Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 561, 535 S.E.2d 678 (2000), but the Court of Appeals, en banc, disagreed with the panel and vacated Hicks' conviction because the Housing Authority's trespass policy contravened the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Hicks v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 49, 52, 548 S.E.2d 249, 251 (2001). In Commonwealth v. Hicks, 264 Va. 48, 58, 563 S.E.2d 674, 680 (2002), the Virginia Supreme Court held that the trespass policy was overly broad and, therefore, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court disagreed and concluded that the challenged policy was not overly broad in violation of the First Amendment. Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, ___, 123 S.Ct. 2191, 2199 (2003).

Nomination of Claude Allen viewed as turning back clock on civil rights

For one sophomore's opinion, there is this piece from the Yale Daily News that says that "using ultra-conservative judicial nominations and extremist legislation to curtail the liberties that Americans have cherished for many years," and cites the nomination of Claude Allen to the Fourth Circuit as one example.

Another of the Warner amendments that was rejected - home school qualifications

The Home School Legal Defense Association had this press release on the General Assembly's rejection of Governor Warner's amendments to the home school bill.

Albemarle judge declares conflict with prosecutors and Public Defender, takes himself of criminal cases

The Richmond paper reports here ("Judge cites conflict with lawyers," 4/22/04) that a Circuit Court judge in Albemarle County has declared that he is out of any more criminal cases because of his conflicts with the offices of the Commonwealth's Attorney and the Public Defender.

The article says that the judge has been on the bench for 18 years. I wonder whether this self-disqualification is the kind of issue that Republican legislators might latch onto if the judge ever seeks reappointment.

Judge rules against total closure of Marcus Vick hearing

The Roanoke Times reports here ("In written decision, judge rules Vick trial to be open to the public," 4/22/04) that a juvenile and domestic relations district court judge in Montgomery County has denied requests to close the hearing of criminal charges against Virginia Tech football player Marcus Vick.

High school football coach acquitted of battering player

The Roanoke paper reports here ("Jury acquits former Patrick Henry coach," 4/22/04) on the acquittal of a high school football coach on charges of battering a player on his team.

Warner amendments rejected, with veto-proof numbers on anti-gay union bill

The Roanoke paper reports here ("Warner's amendments die in House," 4/22/04), the Richmond paper reports here ("Assembly's vote bans same-sex unions in Va.," 4/22/04), the Norfolk paper reports here ("Lawmakers restore full ban on gay unions, partnerships," 4/22/04), the Washington Post reports here ("Assembly Rebuffs Warner Amendments," 4/22/04), the Washington Times reports here ("Legislature rejects bill revisions by Warner," 4/22/04), and the AP reports here that the General Assembly rejected Governor Warner's amendments to the bills on gay partnerships, abortion, the 21-day rule, and tobacco money.

No error where government waives peremptories to ensure enough in panel to pick jury

In U.S. v. Stanley, the Fourth Circuit in a per curiam opinion for the panel of Judges Wilkinson, Michael, and King affirmed the verdict in a case tried before Judge Jones, where the issues raised on appeal included the defendant's claim that the jury was not properly seated, since the strikes for cause whittled down the jury pool to 25, and the government waived three of its peremptory strikes so that the defendant could have 10 of his peremptories and a jury of 12 could still be had.

Fourth Circuit affirms summary judgment for ATF on gun shop's complaint about letter

In Blaustein & Reich, Inc. v. Buckles, the Fourth Circuit in an opinion by Judge Shedd joined by Chief Judge Wilkins and Judge Niemeyer affirmed summary judgment for the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Farms (as it was formerly known) on a gun shop owner's complaint about a letter the plaintiff and 400+ other gun shops received from ATF demanding information about secondhand gun sales.

Judge Wilson finds consent to search vehicle of foreign national with methamphetamine

In U.S. v. Barrera, Chief Judge Wilson of the W.D. Va. denied the defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that the law enforcement officers did not unlawfully detain the defendant and had consent to search the defendant's vehicle, in which they found methamphetamine. In part, the Court rejected the defendant's claims that he did not understand English very well. Also, the Court concluded, "the simple fact that Barrera was Mexican lends no support to the allegation that Meredith knew Barrera felt compelled to remain and answer his questions."

In a footnote, the Court noted the following: "Barrera also claims that the evidence obtained should be suppressed because officers did not notify him of his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Although the Vienna Convention requires officers arresting a foreign national to inform him of his right to contact his consular, suppression of evidence is not a proper remedy for violations of the treaty. United States v. Lawal, 231 F.3d 1045, 1048 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga, 206 F.3d 882, 883-84 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, the court rejects Barrera’s claim."

Profile of NC judge long-ago nominated to Fourth Circuit with no vote in sight

Via How Appealing, the Raleigh paper has this profile of Chief Judge Terrence Boyle of the E.D.N.C., who was nominated to the Fourth Circuit about 3 years ago but the Senate has yet to act on his nomination.

More on the case of the Virginia lawyer accused of murdering neighboring farmer

Via VLW, the Fredericksburg paper has this report ("A feud carried too far," 4/21/04) and the Richmond paper has this report ("Rural feud, wayward bull - and death," 4/21/04) on the case of the Virginia lawyer accused of murdering a neighboring cattle farmer in a dispute over a wayward bull.

New overtime rules

This post ("Big news day for overtime pay reform issue") from George's Employment Blog is chock full of links about the new Department of Labor overtime rules, including a link to this DOL page on the new rules.

More on that 9th Circuit arrest case

From SCOTUSBlog, these are the questions presented in the Devenpeck v. Alford case:

Under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness test, an arrest is deemed "reasonable" if there is probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred. Two judicial circuits find an arrest reasonable if, based on an objective assessment by a reasonable officer, there is probable cause to arrest for any offense. On the other hand, at least five judicial circuits find an arrest to be reasonable only if there is probable cause to arrest for crimes "closely related" to the crime or crimes articulated by the arresting officer. This case presents the following questions:

1. Does an arrest violate the Fourth Amendment when a police officer has probable cause to make an arrest for one offense, if that offense is not closely related to the offense articulated by the officer at the time of the arrest?

2. For the purpose of qualified immunity, was the law clearly established when there was a split in the circuits regarding the application of the "closely related offense doctrine", the Ninth Circuit had no controlling authority applying the doctrine, and Washington state law did not apply the doctrine?

Convicted felon goes 0-20 on appellate issues in divorce case

The opinion in Budnick v. Budnick might be used as a case study in all the different ways to lose on appeal - with 20 issues raised, some were rejected because no authority was cited for them in the appeals court, some were waived in the circuit court, some were never raised in the circuit court, and most of the issues decided on the merits had to do with the fellow arguing in essence that his felony convictions shouldn't be held against him in a way that would take money away from him and give it to his ex-wife and children.