Search
Filter Search
Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists
Held that statutes requiring the patient to obtain expert testimony to establish the requisite standard of care in the patient's negligence action did not violate the anti-abrogation clause, despite the patient's allegations that no expert would testify
State v. Chadwick
Held that in multiple acts case when counts charged are identical, the jury must be specifically instructed that it must be unanimous regarding both the conduct supporting conviction on each count and the defendant's guilt
Jenkins v. Beaver County
Held that the mail-in ballot postmark statute did not result in an unequal treatment of voters or interfere with the constitutional right to vote
State v. Baugh
Held that defendant’s counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to request jury instructions on its duty to be unanimous as to each element of each convicted count
Satcher v. Columbia County
Held that the injunction entered against county, preventing it from maintaining a defective stormwater drainage system, exceeded the scope of the sovereign immunity waiver
Virginia Courts Are Revisiting How to Interpret the State Constitution
A recent case announcing greater state protection of religious liberties than under federal law marked a turning point in Virginia jurisprudence.
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Simmons
Reversed trial court injunction that had ordered Indiana's bureau of motor vehicles to allow a non-binary gender marker on drivers' licenses, finding that the agency's binary-only policy triggers rational-basis review under the federal equal protection clause and does not infringe federal substantive due process.
Sports Medicine Research & Testing Lab. v. Board of Equalization of Salt Lake County
Held that taxpayer's use of facility to perform market-rate testing for professional sports organizations did not serve a charitable purpose and taxpayer was not entitled to tax exemption
State v. King
Held that the constitutional prohibition on pre-submission deliberations by juries does not apply to three judge panels
