George M. Cochran

The case involved Virginia Beach residents challenging a building permit for a 17-story hotel and adjoining conference center, claiming violations of local zoning rules on front, side, and rear setbacks as well as parking. The Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the permit after requiring adjustment to meet a 35-foot oceanfront setback, and the circuit court affirmed the Board's action on the merits while dismissing a separate chancery suit for failing to meet the 15-day filing deadline under Code § 15.1-496.3. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, ruling that the site plan complied with the ordinance because the conference center lot was not required to provide additional setbacks along Ocean Avenue or the 20-foot easement, nonconforming uses were not impermissibly expanded, and any error in dismissing the chancery suit was harmless given the parallel appeal proceeding.

propertyprocedure

In this case, general contractor Blake Construction sued architects Ballou and Justice for over $3.8 million in economic losses allegedly caused by the architects' negligent performance of duties under their contract with the project owner, the Commonwealth of Virginia, even though Blake had no direct contract with the architects. The trial court sustained the architects' demurrers and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, holding that no cause of action exists for a contractor to recover purely economic losses from an architect or engineer in the absence of privity of contract. The court reasoned that Code § 8.01-223 eliminates the privity requirement only in negligence actions involving injury to person or property, not economic loss alone, and that architects owe no common-law duty to protect contractors from such losses, which are instead governed by contract.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a contract for the sale of land from Williams to Duggin, contingent on zoning for development, with Duggin later assigning his interest to a third party for a fee. After Williams canceled the contract for failure to settle by the deadline and sold the property elsewhere, Duggin sued for breach seeking damages based on the lost assignment fee. The trial court excluded Duggin's evidence of damages and entered judgment for Williams. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, reasoning that lost profits from the assignment were not recoverable because they were not within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was executed, as Williams had no knowledge of any plan to assign the contract for profit.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Walter Milton Correll, Jr., who was tried without a jury and convicted of capital murder during the commission of an armed robbery and of robbery, resulting in a death sentence for the capital murder after the court found the killing outrageously vile and a life sentence for the robbery. Correll appealed, primarily challenging the constitutionality of Virginia's capital murder statutes under Furman v. Georgia on the basis that prosecutorial discretion in charging could lead to arbitrary imposition of the death penalty. The Virginia Supreme Court rejected this argument, reaffirming prior precedents such as Gregg v. Georgia that such discretion does not invalidate the statutes or render the death penalty arbitrary. The court reviewed the evidence from accomplice testimony detailing the robbery and stabbing of the victim, addressed issues including the admissibility of statements and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and found no error warranting reversal. It therefore affirmed both convictions and the death sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned efforts by Vivian Carter to enforce a 1964 Florida divorce decree awarding her a money judgment against her ex-husband Newman Carter, which she revived in Florida in 1977, by obtaining a Virginia judgment in 1981. The Virginia Supreme Court held that the action was time-barred by the 10-year statute of limitations in Code § 8.01-252 for suits on foreign judgments, which runs from the date the original judgment was rendered rather than from any revival. The court reasoned that Florida law treated the revival proceeding as a continuation of the 1964 judgment, not a new one, and that Virginia's shorter limitations period for foreign judgments compared to the 20-year period for domestic judgments under § 8.01-251 did not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause or Equal Protection Clause because the statute is procedural and rationally related to legitimate state interests in finality of litigation.

procedurefamily law

This case consolidated two appeals addressing the duty of care owed by landowners or occupiers to firefighters and police officers injured while performing official duties on the premises. In the first, firefighter Pearson fell through an obscured hole in a building under demolition; in the second, officer Jones fell when a wooden platform collapsed during a search. The court adopted a limited-duty rule patterned on the standard for licensees, holding that an occupier owes a duty to warn of a hidden danger only upon actual knowledge of the dangerous condition and actual knowledge of the privileged person's presence on the premises. Applying this standard, the court sustained the demurrers and dismissed Pearson's action while upholding the jury verdict in Jones under a licensee instruction. The reasoning rests on the traditional trespasser-licensee-invitee framework, the assumption of inherent risks by public safety officers, and the need for a workable rule distinct from general invitee or licensee duties.

torts & liability