Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

Imagine being a part of an intense courtroom drama. Today, you'll be stepping into the shoes of legal giants, as we explore the intriguing case of Swinson v. Commonwealth. Our conversation zooms in on the concept of harmless error in criminal cases, and the ripple effect it may have on the jury verdict. Often, it's the weight of the evidence and the impact of jury instructions that shape the final outcome. Let's take a journey into the heart of this legal spectacle. We'll also take you behind the scenes of a captivating dialogue between Zagorski and Stalard. They represent the defense and Commonwealth respectively, and their insights on jury instruction in a case involving drug distribution are nothing short of enlightening. Together, we'll probe into the differences between the Commonwealth’s and defense's approach, the role of the seemingly harmless error, and how something as simple as the presence or absence of a pager can contribute to the case’s narrative. As we draw the curtains on this episode, let's delve into the heart of jury instructions and the careful consideration behind them. From the relevance of expert testimony to the debate on retiring certain factors due to modernization, our discussion leaves no stone unturned. We cast a spotlight on the fact finder's role in weighing these factors, and the potential harm of excluding relevant information from the instructions. Tune in as we dissect this grand courtroom drama and reveal the intricacies of the justice system. It's an episode you won't want to miss! P.S Don't forget to check out other podcasts by Ben Glass - The Court of Appeals of Virginia podcast and the Renegade Lawyer podcast. It's a law enthusiast’s paradise! This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

Are you ready to unlock the mysteries surrounding revocation proceedings and the concept of affirmative election? This episode promises to arm you with legal insights and court interpretations drawn from the case of Commonwealth of Virginia v. DeLon. We dissect whether the violation conduct that occurred prior to the effective date of the statute should apply and if the preparation of sentencing guidelines qualifies as an affirmative election. You'll discover a fascinating twist: a failure to object does not necessarily amount to consent - an eye-opener in itself. Join us as we chart through the ambiguities of statutory interpretation, especially in probation violation cases. We spotlight the case of Emily DeLon, accused of violating a special condition of remaining drug-free while on probation. We delve into the Court of Appeals' decision and subject matter jurisdiction to the special condition. We debate the intricate power and discretion of trial courts in imposing special conditions and probe the grey area where technical violations are masked as special conditions to sidestep limitations. Get ready for a fiery debate with our lawyer guest who challenges our interpretation of a conversation between a trial court judge and a prosecutor, contesting the presence of consent for retroactive sentencing. We extend our discussion to the prosecutor's role in determining the punishment scheme and the fine line that separates special conditions from technical violations. You'll gain insights into how courts use their discretion within legislative limitations. This episode is not just a podcast, it is a journey into the heart of litigation, an invaluable resource for those intrigued by the nuances of technical violations and the prosecutor's pivotal role in punishment schemes. This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

Ever wondered how the concept of alibi defense can shape the outcome of a sexual abuse case? Prepare to go on an intellectual journey as the attorneys and court dissect a case where the defense claims a broad timeframe of charges doesn’t sync with the evidence. The argument reaches to the meaning of alibi, its spatial aspect, and how to categorize the evidence—is it alibi or impeachment? This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

Fasten your seatbelts as the court and counsel zoom into the nitty-gritty of Rule 3A15, exploring its relevance to double jeopardy principles. They ponder on the common law that forbids a judge from reconsidering a motion to strike, scrutinizing its boundaries and applications. The journey gets more twisted as the parties explore the question of the detrimental reliance of the oral ruling and the constitutional argument that suggests states can draw the line earlier. .The arguments conclude with a powerful argument from the Commonwealth urging the court to overrule the decision of the Court of Appeals. So, are you ready to dive in and challenge your understanding of legal principles? This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

Could a grandmother who foots the bill for her grandchild's medical expenses in the wake of a crime be the rightful recipient of restitution? Join us as attorneys and the Supreme Court of Virginia unravel the legal labyrinth in the Commonwealth vs. Puckett case, with insights from legal experts Jordan Minot and Graham Bryant. The arguments navigate the murky waters of legal definitions, reevaluating the concept of a 'victim' with broader implications, and questioning whether indirect financial casualties of crime should be eligible for restitution. Diving deeper, the parties toss around the broader interpretation of 'incur' in relation to medical expenses and restitution. They pull examples from the AV Automotive, the State Farm, and the Bowers decisions to provide a diverse, contextual understanding. Ponder with us, as they delve into the potential ramifications of a volunteer bearing medical costs and whether such interpretation of 'incur' aligns with the canon of construction for restitution statutes. Lastly, the arguments dissect the statutory structure of restitution in Virginia, a state which offers broad discretion in restitution awards and commands restitution in certain circumstances. As they wrap up, they reflect on the broader implications of such definitions of 'victim' and 'incur' in the restitution context. They also discuss how the General Assembly might have incorporated qualifying language into the statute and whether the statute, in its current form, still fulfills the objectives of restitution. Join us for this enlightening conversation, offering a fresh perspective on restitution for medical expenses in crimes. This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

The case involves the validity of a lien and the distribution of funds related to a property sale. The Caldwell Trust had a lien on the property, which was subject to a tax lien by the City of Richmond. The Caldwell Trust argues that the judgment lien is an interest in property rights, protected under both the US Constitution and the Virginia Constitution.The City of Richmond argues that the Caldwell Trust's lien is subordinate to the tax lien and the deed of trust, which must be satisfied first. The trial court found that the deed of trust had a lien of $14,000, which the Caldwell Trust does not challenge. The Caldwell Trust argues that the City of Richmond cannot keep the $14,000, as it is not entitled to it. The City of Richmond argues that it can keep the money if the first lien holder does not show up within two years, according to a statute. The Caldwell Trust argues that the statute is problematic and violates property rights. A writ was granted on the following issues: The Trial Court erroneously ruled that Appellant’s lien claim established under Va. Code § 58.1-3967 to the net tax sale proceeds to be distributed after payment in full of the City of Richmond’s statutory tax lien is not a constitutionally protected private property interest in the Disputed Tax Sale Proceeds. The Trial Court erroneously failed to rule that the provisions of Va. Code § 58.1-3967 granting the City of Richmond the right to the Disputed Tax Sale Proceeds remaining after satisfaction of all obligations due the City of Richmond under its statutory tax lien was an unconstitutional taking of the Caldwell Trust’s property right in the Disputed Tax Sale Proceeds without just compensation under the United States and Virginia Constitutions. This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

The ACLU of Virginia filed Prease v. Clarke in the Virginia Supreme Court, challenging the continued incarceration of Steven Prease and advocating for his immediate release from the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC). The case focuses on the interpretation of a law that expanded Virginia's earned sentence credit program, with the petition arguing that Mr. Prease had been unfairly denied the increased credits. Since its establishment in 1995, Virginia's earned sentence credit program has offered the possibility of early release for most incarcerated individuals. In 2020, the program underwent an expansion when the Virginia General Assembly passed a law that increased the number of credits individuals could earn. This legislative change was expected to benefit thousands of people currently serving time. UPDATE: July 7,2023, The Supreme Court of Virginia has ordered the release. https://www.wric.com/news/virginia-news/virginia-supreme-court-orders-release-of-steven-prease-who-challenged-earned-sentence-credit-rollback/ This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

The defendant challenged the admissibility of an in-court identification of him. Here's what the lower court (Court of Appeals) said: In the vast majority of contested criminal trials, a witness will take the stand and testify under oath that the defendant, who is present in the courtroom, is the person who committed the crime. It happens routinely in trials conducted in the courts of the Commonwealth and has happened for as long as there have been such trials and courts. Despite the fact such a question and answer in the course of a criminal trial was a common occurrence when the Virginia Declaration of Rights was adopted in 1776, when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, and when every subsequent version of the Virginia Constitution has been ratified, Walker contends that such questions and answers potentially offend the due process protections enshrined in each of the referenced documents. This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

Deluca v. the Commonwealth. The Court does not seem to be buying the argument that when your lawyer takes the stand to testify about his conversations with you when you are attempting to withdraw your guilty plea because "you didn't understand everything" that this is a 6th Amendment violation of your right to counsel. This Supreme Court of Virginia podcast is brought to you by BenGlassLaw, area leaders in personal injury and long term disability insurance claims. This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

An appeal of sanctions issued in a shareholder derivative suit. How can courts (and lawyers) still be messing up the 21 day "final order" rule in Virginia? Second issue. If the appellate bond for costs is given in the form of a check to the Clerk of the Court, is that good enough? And in who's name is the appeal taken? This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

In this case the principal issue is whether the City had to turn over all documents that it considered before firing a firefighter. Assignments of Error 1. The circuit court erred in granting a writ of mandamus by order on July 23rd, 2021, requiring the City to provide all relevant records requested by a grievant prior to a final grievance hearing, because a writ of mandamus was not an appropriate remedy in this matter. 2. The circuit court erred in its statutory interpretation of Virginia Code § 15.2-1507(A)(10)(b)(3) by holding by order on July 23rd, 2021, that the statute creates a ministerial duty for a locality to provide to a grievant any relevant records requested by the grievant prior to a final grievance hearing as such interpretation and subsequent ruling goes beyond the plain language of the statute. The Supreme Court of Virginia podcast is a production of BenGlassLaw, a personal injury and disability law firm headquartered in Fairfax Virginia. The podcast uses recordings that are in the public domain, edited "lightly" for the elimination of filler words and long pauses. This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

A Suffolk Circuit Court judge ruled that the Suffolk School Board violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying Dr. Deborah Wahlstrom access to an open meeting. Judge Matthew A. Glassman ruled that the School Board violated the open meeting requirements as set forth under FOIA when Wahlstrom was not allowed to view a school board’s retreat from inside the meeting room at the College and Career Academy at Pruden, where it was held. Glassman, however, ruled that neither Brooks-Buck nor Gordon should be held liable, as he said it was not a “willful and knowing” violation. He ruled that the board must, in the future, design retreats to allow for public access in the meeting room itself. A future hearing date is to be set for the possible award of attorney fees. Read the Suffolk Times Herald Article here. UPDATE: 04/27/2023 In the plaintiff’s action alleging that a city School Board and two school officials violated the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (“VFOIA”), Code § 2.2-3700 et seq., by denying her free entry to a public meeting of the Board, the trial court did not err in awarding relief to the plaintiff because the Board violated the statute, or in denying her claims against the individual defendants. The case is remanded for determination of the fees and costs she is entitled to recover since she substantially prevailed in the suit. The opinion is here. The Supreme Court of Virginia podcast is a production of BenGlassLaw, a personal injury and disability law firm headquartered in Fairfax Virginia. The podcast uses recordings that are in the public domain, edited "lightly" for the elimination of filler words and long pauses. This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

Under Virginia's Lemon Law statute, a vehicle manufacturer has the opportunity to cure an alleged "lemon." The issue, in this case, is whether, once the dealer does "cure" prior to a lawsuit being filed, the plaintiff can never the less recover his attorney fees. Suit was filed and dismissed and this is an appeal of that dismissal. The Supreme Court of Virginia podcast is a production of BenGlassLaw, a personal injury and disability law firm headquartered in Fairfax Virginia. The podcast uses recordings that are in the public domain, edited "lightly" for the elimination of filler words and long pauses. OPINION. On April 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of Virginia upheld the trial court's ruling that attorney fees cannot be recovered in this situation. This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

What happens when a lawyer in a Virginia divorce case in which adultery may be an issue enters into a sexual relationship with his female client while the divorce proceedings are ongoing? In this case, the lawyer withdrew from the case and, according to the arguments here, left his client without an attorney. He was reprimanded by the Virginia State Bar and in this hearing before the Supreme Court of Virginia, appeals that reprimand. The Supreme Court of Virginia podcast is a production of BenGlassLaw, a personal injury and disability law firm headquartered in Fairfax Virginia. The podcast uses recordings that are in the public domain, edited "lightly" for the elimination of filler words and long pauses. Ruling: no surprise here. In an appeal of right from an attorney disciplinary proceeding before a three judge panel, the circuit court’s finding that this lawyer violated Rule 1.7(a)(2) by engaging in sexual relations with his divorce client during the representation is supported by the record, and the finding that he added a fault ground for divorce against his client, as well as other findings of fact with which the lawyer takes issue, are likewise supported by the record. You can read the opinion here. This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case CONRAD BURKE v. STANLEY YOUNG, ET AL. (Record Number 200095) From The Circuit court of Tazewell County; R. Patterson, Judge. Counsel Conrad Burke, pro se, for appellant. Ann-Marie Catherine White (Office of the Attorney General) for appellees. Assignments of Error 1. The circuit court erred in holding that there are and were no genuine facts in dispute when there clearly is a genuine dispute of facts for a jury to decide the outcome of this matter yet this Honorable Court of Tazewell County granted the defendant summary judgment in this case which was in direct conflict with procedures and relevant law of the Virginia state judicial system. 2. The circuit court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing to review camera footage which would have further bolstered the appellant’s claims and furthering the fact to which the evidence would show that the defendants are not and were not eligible for summary judgment due to the improperly applied restraints causing the appellant further suffering due to the fact that Burke was not able to drink water, eat or to be able to relieve himself, unassisted for a long period of time with NO breaks to do so. 3. The circuit court erred by not considering evidence and medical records to which material facts arose due to numbness in feet and hands from the improperly placed restraints and no foot coverings on a cold concrete floor for an excessive amount of time. The court also erred due to the fact that Burke was stripped naked with only his underwear in a very cold cell for an excessive amount of time. This information was put in an affidavit to the trial court which did in fact give more genuine facts in this case for a jury to decide. 6. The circuit court erred by granting summary judgment stating, “the restraints were properly applied and the situation warranted the use of force.” This information was for a jury to decide and not for the Honorable Judge to decide as per Virginia Code and relative law governing such issues. 8. The circuit court erred by making a ruling on the evidence in which was not part of his duties as this is the duty of the jury. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/200095.pdf This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case ROBERT JOHN DODD v. HAROLD CLARKE, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (Record Number 200091) From Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; F.G. Rockwell, III, Judge. Counsel Johnathan P. Sheldon (Sheldon & Flood, P.L.C.) for appellant. Rosemary V. Bourne (Office of the Attorney General) for appellee. Assignment of Error The circuit court erred when it denied Dodd’s claim that his Double Jeopardy and Due Process rights under Art. I, §§ 8 & 11 of the Virginia Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated when he was tried and convicted on indictments that were identical. The circuit court erred when it denied Dodd’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective under the Virginia Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution for failing to object to the Double Jeopardy and Due Process violations. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/200091.pdf This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case AARON LOUIS GOLDBERG v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 191701) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Roger Alan Whitus (Office of the Public Defender) for appellant. Kelsey M. Bulger (Office of the Attorney General) for appellee. Assignment of Error I. The Court of Appeals erred by finding that any error in denying appellant’s motion in limine and admitting horizontal gaze nystagmus ("HGN") evidence was harmless. II. The Court of Appeals erred by failing to rule on whether the evidence of HGN testing was scientific, supported by sufficient foundational evidence of reliability, and was unfairly prejudicial in violation of appellant’s constitutional rights and the Virginia Rules of Evidence. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191701.pdf This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

Granted Appeal Summary Case PALMYRA ASSOCIATES, LLC, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS (Record Number 191680) From The Circuit Court of Fluvanna County; R.D. Taylor, Jr., Judge. Counsel Joseph E. Blackburn (Blackburn, Conte, Schilling & Click, P.C.) for appellants. Francis A. Cherry, Jr., and F. Adam Cherry, III (Randolph, Boyd, Cherry and Vaughan) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court erred as a matter of case law in striking David Sutton’s testimony as to his opinion of damages to the residue. 2. The trial court erred as a matter of case law in refusing to admit into evidence site plans Landowner had prepared over 10 years prior to the take showing the development potential of their property and overlays showing the impact of the imposition of the fourth leg of the roundabout on the development potential of their property. These plans are Refused Exhibits A, B & C. 3. The trial court erred in putting the parties on terms of either the court confirming the value of the take or ordering a new trial. 4. The trial court erred as a matter of case law in finding that Mr. Sutton’s testimony had anything to do with damaging the property on a “per lot” basis. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191680.pdf This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case DWAYNE RAMON SMITH v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL. (Record Number 191559) From The Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; D. Johnson, Judge. Counsel Henry W. McLaughlin (The Law Office of Henry McLaughlin, P.C.) for appellant. Robert W. Loftin (McGuireWoods LLP) for appellee. Assignment of Error 1. The Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia (“the trial court”) erred in the trial court’s written rulings on July 3, 2019 sustaining a plea in bar by appellee Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) and a plea in bar by appellee Equity Trustees, LLC (“Equity Trustees”). This was error because, when those pleas in bar came on for an evidentiary hearing before the trial court on June 13, 2019, after counsel had presented oral argument on a motion craving oyer and demurrers, although the appellant, Dwayne Smith (“Smith”) was present to present evidence in opposition to the plea in bar, on the basis of a proposal by counsel for Bank of America, agreed to by all counsel of record, the evidentiary hearing that had been scheduled for June 13, 2019 on the pleas in bar was not held, rather the trial court stated “Then we’ll just take the plea in bar completely under advisement. I’ll take the motion to crave oyer and the demurrer, with respect to the demurrer, today, under advisement. And I will respond to you within a week on the motion to crave oyer and the two demurrers. And then we’ll set the plea and bar or not depending on how the Court rules.” This amounted to a continuance of the evidentiary hearing set for June 13, 2019 on the pleas in bar. As a result, the case was not ready for decision on the pleas in bar and Smith was deprived of his due process opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the pleas in bar when the trial court, on July 3, 2019 issued written rulings sustaining the pleas in bar. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191559.pdf This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case C. ROBERT JOHNSON, III, ET AL. v. CITY OF SUFFOLK, ET AL. (Record Number 191563) From The Circuit Court for the City of Suffolk; L. Farmer, Judge. Counsel L. Steven Emmert (Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C.), Joseph T. Waldo and Russell G. Terman (Waldo & Lyle, P.C.) for appellants. David L. Arnold, D. Rossen S. Greene, and Matthew R. Hull (Pender & Coward, P.C.), and Christopher D. Pomeroy and Paul T. Nyffeler (AquaLaw PLC) for appellees. Assignment of Error The trial court erroneously sustained the demurrers, because the declaratory-judgment petition states a facially valid claim for inverse condemnation, and: A. The trial court erroneously based its ruling on federal caselaw interpreting the United States Constitution, because the oystermen’s claims are based on the Constitution of Virginia. B. The trial court erroneously ruled that the City and HRSD have the right to pollute the Commonwealth’s waters and that they need not pay just compensation to the oystermen. In doing so, it erroneously relied on now-obsolete caselaw and erroneously applied that caselaw. Assignments of Cross-Error (City of Suffolk) 1. The trial court erred in overruling the demurrers on the ground that an inverse condemnation case will not lie against the City because the City lacks the authority to exercise eminent domain over the oyster ground leases in this case. 2. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should have been dismissed because the Appellants failed to allege a public use and failed to allege facts sufficient to show that their property was taken or damaged for a public use. 3. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should have been dismissed because oyster ground leases do not guarantee lessees water of a certain purity or pollution level. 4. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument raised in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should be dismissed because whatever taking or damage the Appellants did allege was due to the state’s exercise of its police power. 5. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument raised in the City’s plea in bar that the Petition should be dismissed as time-barred because the claims are premised on conditions which have existed continuously since before the three-year statute of limitations. Assignment of Cross-Error (Hampton Roads Sanitation District) 1. The Circuit Court erred in denying in part HRSD’s demurrer by finding that HRSD has condemnation authorit This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law. Real legal help for real people Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.” You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review. Get a free consultation