Gary r bratton marriage record

In the beginning, they were one of many U. Many of their recordings featured a brass section , which was a novelty in those days among American rock bands, with groups like Chicago just developing. The bulk of the band's material continued to be written by Dunhill Records staff not only Sloan and Barri and the LA studio-musicians who were part of what became known as the Wrecking Crew played the music on most, if not all, of their hits.

In late , the band recorded the album Feelings , which featured much heavier input in the songwriting and playing by the group members themselves. By this time, Sloan had phased out of his involvement with the band and relocated to New York City to pursue a solo career. Creed Bratton became frustrated by Dunhill's refusal to allow the band to write its own songs and play the instruments on its records although the members did play alone at concerts. After a disastrous appearance at the Fillmore West in April , a "slightly inebriated" Bratton was asked to leave the band.

By Furlong had stopped touring with the group to pursue a solo career but would continue to contribute on the records during the rest of their time on Dunhill. His touring replacement was Brian Naughton, who left in Drummer Rick Coonce was gone as well by the beginning of and new members Joe Pollard drums, percussion and another guitarist named Terry last name unknown joined up.

Terry was soon replaced by Reed Kailing vocals, guitars. However, drummer Pollard and keyboardist Dennis Provisor left soon after to go out as a duo although Provisor was featured on the band's Move Along album and were replaced by a returning Rick Coonce and keyboard man Virgil Weber ex- Hamilton, Joe Frank and Reynolds and Climax. Coonce was back for only a short period before he was gone again, turning the drum throne over to original member Joel Larson.

Singers Rob Grill and Warren Entner remained the point of focus during these years. Furlong left permanently by mid to be succeeded by Gene Barkin, then by Reggie Knighton. The resulting group was Grill, Larson, Provisor and Knighton. Dennis Lambert and Brian Potter , who had penned the group's hit "Two Divided By Love" and many others, invited the band to join their Haven label, where they released an eponymous album in , The Grass Roots , containing the single "Mamacita", which charted at 71 on the Billboard Hot Follow-up singles failed to chart.

Knighton left in and Alan Deane took over, followed by guitarist Glen Shulfer in But in late , Grill decided to take a break from performing and later recorded the 14 Greats album on Gusto Records featuring himself and Provisor. This album consisted of rerecordings of their hits. The group, still managed and booked by Grill who owned the group's name ,in late continued touring with Larson, Mark Miller lead vocals, guitar and Brian Carlyss bass, backing vocals , joined by Lonnie Price lead vocals, keyboards and Randy Ruff organ, backing vocals for touring dates and TV appearances until November Larson was then joined by new players Scott Hoyt lead vocals, guitars , David Nagy lead vocals, bass and Gene Wall keyboards.

Nagy and Larson left in and were replaced by a returning Carlyss and Reagan McKinley drums, percussion. Grill toured as a solo act in — opening for Fleetwood Mac's Tusk Tour with a band led by guitarist Rick Alexander. When interest in bands of the s began to rise again in , Grill along with Provisor, Shulfer and new players Steve Berendt bass and Luke Meurett drums took back the Grass Roots name and toured the United States and Japan.

Guitarist Miller returned to sub more dates with the group in In Grill decided to go forward with a brand new lineup consisting of seasoned session players. They were Terry Oubre guitars, backing vocals , Charles Judge keyboards, synthesizers, backing vocals and Ralph Gilmore drums, percussion, backing vocals.

Another keyboardist, Bob Luna, came in around mid to sub for Judge on dates when he wasn't available. This would be the last album of new material to be released by the Grass Roots. Watt said that "rock bands" that had performed on the Mall on Independence Day in and had encouraged drug use and alcoholism and had attracted "the wrong element", who would mug people and families attending any similar events in the future. After Powers failed to attract much attention, Grill and the group continued to tour into Dave Rodgers keyboards, backing vocals replaced Charles Judge and after Terry Oubre and Ralph Gilmore departed, Grill brought in two additional new players named George Spellman guitars, backing vocals and Coy Fuller drums, percussion and headed over to tour Europe in the summer of ' According to Grill, there was also a country single, "St.

Somewhere", recorded in Nashville with this same lineup. This single was never released. By late , Grill had returned to the US and was touring with yet another new group of Grass Roots that included Dusty Hanvey guitars, backing vocals , Larry Nelson keyboards, synthesizers, backing vocals and David Page drums, percussion.

This lineup's first show was in Okinawa. They were joined in this show by bassist Mark Clarke ex- Uriah Heep and Rainbow and a horn section, and backed up the Monkees and Gary Puckett during their sets as well. Terry Danauer was also added on bass at this point. Mike Stec came in for Danauer on bass in — before Grill took over bass again.

From here on the band's lineup was stable. In Grill released a Grass Roots live concert album titled Live at Last , which was followed in by an album with a symphonic quartet titled Symphonic Hits. During the s, the group regulars had available substitutes former Outsiders singer Sonny Geraci sat in for Grill during the first half of , Scott Sechman filled in for Hanvey in , Chris Merrell filled in for Hanvey on various dates —, while Hal Ratliff came in for Nelson when he had other commitments from on. In Grill released a second live concert album titled Live Gold and brought in Mark Dawson vocals, bass earlier that same year to fill in when he was absent.

During the summers of and , the Grass Roots had heavy touring schedules throughout the U. Grill continued to lead the band into the current millennium as the Grass Roots sole owner and made appearances with the band until his death. Rick Coonce died of heart failure on February 25, , [ citation needed ] and Rob Grill died on July 11, from complications following a stroke. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For other uses, see Grass roots disambiguation. American pop rock band. Combined case with Record No.

Ensuring that defamation suits proceed only upon statements which actually may defame a plaintiff, rather than those which merely may inflame a jury to an award of damages, is an essential gatekeeping function of the court. Here, although the circuit judge correctly recognized that the allegedly defamatory statement was non-actionable opinion, the judge consciously disregarded the law and permitted the jury to return a verdict and award damages on a statement that he knew was not actionable as defamation as a matter of law.

This displays a profound misapprehension of the proper role and responsibilities of a judge. This Court must and does reprove it. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and final judgment is entered for the defendant. Over many years, the probationer repeatedly violated the terms of his probation, and the sentence imposed in the present revocation proceeding was less than the prosecutor recommended, and far less than the maximum sentence he could have received. The court did not indicate that its decision to revoke probation was based on anything other than the fact that this probationer received new convictions.

Thus, any alleged error in allowing the prosecutor to read from the newspaper article was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Grass Roots - Wikipedia

While contractual forum selection provisions are prima facie valid and should be enforced, unless they are unfair, unreasonable, or affected by fraud or unequal bargaining power, a party may waive a right conferred by a contract. Here, the defendant bank engaged in months of litigation before moving to dismiss based on the forum selection clauses, extensively utilizing the litigation machinery of the circuit court, arguing and receiving rulings on a demurrer, a plea in bar, a motion craving oyer, several discovery motions, a motion to have a judge assigned to the case, leave to file a third-party complaint, and a forum non conveniens motion.

Thus, the bank waived its right to enforce the clauses. On the issue of dismissal of the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, however, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that good cause did not exist to dismiss the action in contemplation of its continuation in New York.

The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the matter is remanded. The argument that the phrasing of right-to-counsel portions of the Miranda warnings on that day tainted his statements given two days later, when he was under arrest, is rejected. Miranda requires only that the suspect be informed that he has a right to an attorney before and during questioning and that an attorney would be appointed for him if he could not afford one. In view of the limited scope of prior case law, it will not be held that standing is wholly irrelevant when a judgment is challenged as void ab initio for of a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Further, because circuit courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to try, convict, and impose sentence for all felonies, prior case law will not be extended to conclude that standing is irrelevant when a judgment is challenged as void for any of the other four identified bases. The opportunity to declare sua sponte the voidness of sentences imposed upon other felons is declined, as they are unquestionably necessary parties to an action to declare their sentences void, which, if successful, would result in the imposition of new sentences. The judgment of the circuit court dismissing the present motion challenging sentences under the statute is affirmed.

While it is undoubtedly error to sentence a defendant to a term of imprisonment shorter than the minimum authorized by the General Assembly, such error renders the judgment merely voidable, not void. Any excessive sentence is void because the power to render any further judgment did not exist, but the reverse is not true. A sentence for less than what the legislature has provided is merely legal error, and when a court has power to render a judgment, it has the power to render an erroneous one. The circuit court also erred in ruling that the underlying personal injury action asserted a premises liability claim providing an independent basis for potential liability not precluded by the auto exclusion.

Thus, there is no basis for such an award and it is reversed. The decision of the circuit court is reversed and final judgment is entered declaring that the auto exclusion precludes coverage for the personal injuries in this case under the policy. The dispositions of the Court of Appeals of Virginia are reversed, and final judgment is entered on this appeal reinstating and upholding the conviction. The defendant filed her motion to set aside the guilty plea after the circuit court had pronounced sentence from the bench but before a written order had been entered.

Here, the defendant failed to proffer evidence of a reasonable basis for contesting guilt. Her proffered contention that she could prove that the merchandise was left in the store was not a viable defense as a matter of law. The argument that she was unaware of the impact of a guilty plea on job or housing prospects does not state a manifest injustice upon which to set aside the plea.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia is affirmed. Petitioner failed to prove by clear-and-convincing evidence that no rational factfinder would find him guilty of murder in light of the totality of the evidence. Simultaneous with the petition for a writ of actual innocence, petitioner submitted the present application for a writ of habeas corpus, citing the same forensic evidence.

The argument that this statutory limitation period violates the bar against suspension of the writ of habeas corpus as set forth in the Suspension Clause of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of Virginia is rejected. To the extent that petitioner attempts to raise a freestanding claim of actual innocence or argue his innocence should exempt him from the limitation period, both contentions are rejected. Habeas corpus is not a vehicle for raising claims of actual innocence nor does the statute of limitations include any exception for claims of innocence.

The petition is dismissed. The circuit court and the Court of appeals erred by concluding otherwise and by holding that the circuit court, not the JDR court, had jurisdiction to modify the child support order. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia upholding the conviction for failure to register as required is affirmed. Alstom Power, Inc. In the present case, the rule would apply.

Because Virginia law thus recognizes that the rule can apply to breach-of-contract cases, the certified question is answered in the affirmative. The pertinent analysis of deterrence and culpability is confined to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal in light of all of the circumstances.

  1. find web page ip address.
  2. Marriage Index - Archives - State Historical Society of North Dakota!
  3. 2. Search Tips?

There is no basis in this record for accusing the officer of flagrantly ignoring his constitutional duties. That he mistakenly did so does not justify the remedy of excluding otherwise admissible, probative evidence. Since the notice of appeal in this case was not filed within 30 days after such a confirmation order, this appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the day time requirement of Rule a.

By statute, these two types of orders can be appealed separately with neither impacting the other. Accordingly, the appeal in this case is dismissed. A party who challenges the judgment of a lower court must on appeal assign error to each articulated basis for that ruling. In addition to demonstrating a denial of fundamental fairness, to establish a constitutional violation a plaintiff must demonstrate how the alleged violation prejudiced his right to a fundamentally fair proceeding by affecting the ultimate result to some discernable degree.

The petition for writ of actual innocence is granted and his convictions are vacated. In this case, the petitioner offered several previously unknown and untested witness affidavits in support of his petition for a writ of actual innocence based on nonbiological evidence, which the Commonwealth countered with previously unknown and untested witness statements of its own.

Despite the statutory mechanism for referring issues in actual innocence cases to a circuit court for factual determination, the Court of Appeals determined from the record alone that the evidence supporting the petition was not material and accordingly denied the petition. Although the Court of Appeals has broad discretion to determine whether the facts require further development, under the facts in this case, the refusal to order a hearing constituted an abuse of discretion. This defendant did not.

Where undisputed facts showed that a defendant transported himself to the location of a drug transaction in his pickup truck, and sat in his truck during completion of the transaction, there was clear and convincing evidence that he used the pickup truck in substantial connection with the illegal distribution of a controlled substance in this incident. The fact that the controversy or claim deals with the interpretation of the arbitration clause of the contract does not change the outcome. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for entry of an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration.

The stipulated evidence presented to the circuit court, and other evidence received at sentencing, established that the defendant had been in actual or constructive possession of an AK firearm and a loaded magazine for the weapon at his residence during the time period when the four drug sales took place at that location. Thus the defendant did not carry his burden of proof under the exemption statute.

Claimant failed to persuade the Commission that his reconstruction work on the school building was part of the trade, business, or occupation of the church or the historical society. Whether work is part of the trade, business, or occupation of an owner depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case, and here the Court of Appeals did not err in concluding that the Commission applied the correct legal standard and acted within its factfinding discretion when it concluded that the claimant had failed to prove that the church or its historical society were his statutory employers.

Because evidence of causation in FELA cases where the events surrounding an injury are unwitnessed is often entirely circumstantial, the result must depend on the inference to be drawn from the evidence. Under the settled principles governing FELA cases, that juxtaposition created a jury issue as to which inference should be drawn.

Exchange v. The plaintiff gave repeated notice to the corporation of her opposition to a planned sale of a significant part of the business, and it could have sought a declaratory judgment concerning its rights before expending effort in seeking a buyer. The judgment is reversed, and this case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for probate of the will. Thus, it was not error to admit the statements.

The requirement of impartiality means that a trustee under a deed of trust must balance the conflicting positions of the creditor and debtor such that a benefit to one cannot come at a disproportionate expense of the other. Sale of property at a price that is so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience will raise a presumption of fraud.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Here, the motion was timely filed and warrants consideration on the merits by the trial court for the completeness and truthfulness of the disclosure, as well as any further disclosure made to the Commonwealth before resentencing.

North Carolina Digital Collections

The sentences are vacated, and the case is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Accordingly, the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the application for lack of good cause. The circuit court thus also abused its discretion by deviating from the statutory process for assessing a name-change application. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded. The writ will not issue and the petition is dismissed. Under this statute, larceny by worthless check is not limited to checks passed as present consideration for goods and services.

Here, the circuit court, as trier of fact, had sufficient evidence from which it could conclude that on all three occasions in which defendant presented a worthless check for payment on his accounts, he did so with the knowledge that there were not sufficient funds to cover the checks and with the intent to defraud. Thus, the convictions are affirmed, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated. By agreeing to the instructions as submitted, and filing to submit additional instructions on another theory, the defendant waived arguments challenging the instructions as given.

The judgment upholding the conviction for the crime of voluntary manslaughter is affirmed for the reasons stated in the present opinion. This action is remanded for a further in camera review and for disclosure of unredacted billing records consistent with this opinion. The argument that to secure a conviction under this statute the prosecution must prove that the shooter was positioned outside of the occupied vehicle is rejected. The plain language of the statute does not require the prosecution to prove that the shooter was located outside of the vehicle when he fired shots at an occupied vehicle.

The judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and the case is remanded. The determination of competency to stand trial occurs while the circuit court retains jurisdiction over the criminal prosecution, suspends the criminal prosecution, and asks whether the defendant lacks substantial capacity to understand the criminal proceedings against him or to assist his attorney in his own defense. Accordingly, the determination of competency to stand trial is part of a purely criminal process, and an appeal from such a determination is criminal in nature.

Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal in this case. Because there has been no final conviction in this case, the appeal will not be transferred to the Court of Appeals. The appeal is dismissed, without prejudice, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. Commonwealth, 68 Va. This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports. The award of damages for breach of contract is undisturbed, and final judgment for that amount is entered on this appeal. The judgment of the circuit court, dismissing these claims with prejudice on demurrer, is affirmed.

The averment that the employees acted in the scope of their employment created a rebuttable presumption, applicable at the pleading stage as well as at trial, that they committed tortious acts in the scope of their duties of employment and in the service for which they were engaged. Plaintiff did not allege that the employer authorized, directed, ratified or performed the tortious acts, or that the employees were corporate officers or authorized to act, hence the circuit court correctly sustained a demurrer to a claim of direct liability of the employer for breach of the duty of non-disclosure.

While a statute may define the standard of care where there is an underlying common-law duty, the doctrine of negligence per se does not create a cause of action where none otherwise exists. Thus, a demurrer was properly sustained on the negligence per se claim. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for entry of a new sentencing order. At a revocation proceeding, a probationer is entitled to cross-examine adverse witnesses, unless the hearing body specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation, under a balancing test that requires the court to weigh his interests in cross-examining accusers against the interests of the prosecution in denying confrontation, or a reliability test that permits the admission of hearsay if it possesses substantial guarantees of trustworthiness.

Accordingly, the circuit court did not violate his right to confront witnesses against him, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the revocation of probation is affirmed. Although the grantor may reserve the narrow strip to the center of the road from a conveyance, that must be done expressly. Quantity designations are regarded as the least certain mode of describing land, and hence must yield to description by boundaries and distances.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and final judgment is entered in favor of the parcel owner. Policies and guidelines of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia do not warrant a different result in light of the binding law set forth in the governing statutes. Because the circuit court erred in finding that the decision to classify this student as an out-of-state student was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, the judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered for the university.

Arizona, U. An unwarned voluntary admission made before Miranda warnings are given must be suppressed, but admissibility of statements after such warnings will turn on whether they are knowingly and voluntarily made, considering the surrounding circumstances and the entire course of police conduct with respect to the suspect. Thus, the jury as fact-finder and the trial court in ruling on the defense motion to set aside the verdict were wholly justified in rejecting the claim that he only acted out of general malevolence, without the required specific intent.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the convictions is affirmed. The restated question is answered in the affirmative. An attorney involved substantially complied with the Rules of Professional Conduct and any failure to obtain consent in writing before entering a business relationship with the client did not rise to the level of a violation of public policy that requires voiding portions of a contract. In contrast, an elevated duty of care is imposed upon a property owner that operates an inn on its premises, obligating the innkeeper to take every reasonable precaution to protect the person and property of their guests and boarders.

The plaintiff did not establish an innkeeper-guest relationship between herself and the defendants under the facts presented here. Irish Fleet, Inc. Virginia law recognizes two theories upon which a duty to warn or protect against criminal assault by a third party: a duty arising from the existence of a special relationship, and a duty voluntarily assumed by an express undertaking.

In this case, the amended complaint against several defendants alleging, among other things, that a taxicab fleet operator and dispatching service assumed a duty to warn cab drivers of suspicious calls from potential riders and was negligent in fulfilling that duty, was premised on an implied undertaking, and was therefore insufficient to state a tort claim based on the concept of assumption of duty. Wells Fargo Bank, N. The disposition is affirmed.

The circuit court may also impose its own pre-filing injunction if it deems that appropriate. Serco, Inc. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the circuit court committed a clear error of judgment by dismissing this case with prejudice, and the decision of the circuit court is affirmed. The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute and, therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

The accuracy and authenticity of the recording was adequately supported and the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The case ultimately settled and the Commonwealth approved the settlement. Hunter Mill West, L. Accordingly, the trial court erred by failing to place the present case on the docket for a trial on the merits, and the judgment is reversed. The trial court properly admitted testimony to refute the claim that the will was fraudulent and correctly declined to adopt a novel and more rigorous standard for admitting a will to probate.

The judgment admitting the will to probate is affirmed. He committed these criminal acts at two separate dates and in two separate places, thus warranting punishment for two capital murder convictions. A criminal statute that allows separate convictions for separate criminal acts does not implicate, much less constitutionally offend, double jeopardy principles. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The circuit court erred in finding that the guarantor had entered a general appearance by participation in post-judgment enforcement proceedings and had thereby waived any objection to the validity of the default judgment.

An appearance after entry of judgment cannot retroactively validate a judgment that was void when rendered for lack of personal jurisdiction over a party. Nor were there facts in this case to support any estoppel barring the guarantor from raising the defectiveness of the judgment. Because the judgment was concededly void, final judgment is entered on this appeal declaring it so and vacating both the judgment and all later orders seeking to enforce it.

His testimony was contradicted by other evidence in the record, and the Director of the Department of Corrections was not negligent, much less grossly negligent, for rejecting extensive documentary evidence at the screening stage in favor of the otherwise uncorroborated, impeached, and self-interested testimony of an inmate and his brother. The judgment is reversed and the order of dismissal is vacated.

This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The eventual notice of intent to enter explained that completion of the surveys and other activities would require multiple crews over several days, and provided a limited set of dates, the majority of which overlapped, when each crew would be present.

As the landowners have not challenged these date ranges as being unreasonable, it cannot be said that the date ranges provided by the notice of intent to enter violated the statute. FCi Federal, Inc. Because plaintiff was retired at the time he was determined to be physically incapacitated, his incapacity did not prevent the further performance of his duties as a firefighter, because he no longer had firefighting duties to perform.

In this case, a felony conviction is upheld. The statute does not require that a defendant have two predicate convictions at the time he or she commits the offense ultimately charged as a felony, but instead requires that the felony charge must allege that he or she has been previously convicted of two of the listed predicate offenses on different dates within twenty years.

The predicate convictions must exist at the time of the indictment because the Commonwealth must present sufficient evidence of them to enable a grand jury to find probable cause. The Commonwealth must thereafter adduce sufficient evidence at trial to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt, and proof by written order is not required. The Constitution speaks to the result of the districting process, and mandates that districts be compact in the end, but it does not attempt to curtail the legislative process that creates the end result, nor does it require that compactness be given priority over other considerations.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. The judgment dismissing the case without prejudice is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded.

Supreme Court of Tennessee,at Nashville.

Karverly, Inc. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for retrial. When a tenant takes possession under a defectively executed lease, it is a reasonable inference that the parties intended a tenancy on the terms of the original agreement, and the law implies a new contract between the parties corresponding therewith, so far as it is not in conflict with the statute. In this case, once the invalid year term is excised from the lease, the tenancy created and the manner in which the rent was received on a monthly basis during the entirety of the lessor-lessee relationship implies a month-to-month tenancy.

The tenant, which paid monthly until it vacated the premises, had no further rent obligation to the landlord. The judgment is reversed, and final judgment is entered for the tenant and its guarantor. None of the allegations in the complaint reasonably imply that the medical defendants participated in a conspiracy or concert of action with a woman who sought to adopt the infant, or were aware of her alleged coercion or misrepresentations.

The complaint expressly alleges that plaintiff initiated the adoption plan, contacted the prospective adoptive parents, verbally agreed to proceed with an adoption, and executed a written agreement and consent order authorizing the adopting family to have sole physical custody of the child. The judgment sustaining demurrers to the claims as against these defendants is affirmed.

Accordingly, the decision below is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of the law enforcement defendants is reversed. Any other construction would render most of the operative language meaningless. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the matters are remanded for further proceedings.

The judgment of the circuit court sustaining the demurrer to the declaratory relief count of the complaint and sustaining its plea in bar and granting its motion for summary judgment as to two other counts is affirmed. In this statute, the General Assembly has determined that a person who commits the acts proscribed and does so unlawfully but not maliciously, causing a death, is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Thus, this defendant was twice punished in the same trial of the same offense, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed and the case is remanded for the Commonwealth to elect between the convictions. The statutory language is plain and unambiguous, proscribing the act of discharging a firearm within an occupied building in such a manner as to endanger the life of a person therein.

The statute distinguishes between several levels of the offense and subjects them to punishments that differ according to the mens rea of the offender and the resulting harm. Further, subsection A 3 does not state that it governs all purchases of electricity by large customers from competitive service providers. Accordingly, customers who satisfy the size requirements of subsection A 3 can purchase electricity from a competitive provider under subsection A 5 , provided that they satisfy the separate conditions of subsection A 5.

The order of the State Corporation Commission is affirmed. However, it erred by holding that the Illinois holding company must be the entity that pays this tax for the exception to apply. Thus, the petition is dismissed. While the trial court set the verdict aside on the grounds of contributory negligence by the decedent, the judgment is affirmed on the alternate basis that plaintiff failed as a matter of law to establish that the design is unreasonably dangerous.

The conviction is affirmed. The facts underlying the arrest are irrelevant and the petitioner need not show actual prejudice to prevail on her expungement petition. She needs only to demonstrate that the continued existence of an arrest record may cause a manifest injustice. On this record, there is a reasonable possibility that a felony arrest record would hinder her career and her educational opportunities. It is concluded that the petitioner made the requisite showing of a manifest injustice.

The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for entry of an order expunging the felony arrest record at issue. It was an abuse of discretion to disqualify this witness from testifying, and the subsequent entry of summary judgment for the defense was error. The judgment is reversed and the action is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. If any of those circumstances are present, the court must deny the petition. However, even when those circumstances are absent, the court is not required to grant the petition and retains broad discretion in ruling on the petition.

The judgment denying the petition is affirmed. The circuit court should have granted the defense motion to strike the evidence on the basis of lack of causation. The judgment of the circuit court implementing a jury verdict for plaintiff is reversed and final judgment is entered on this appeal for the defendants.

Under Rule a , a final judgment forecloses successive litigation of the same claim, but claim preclusion will not bar a claim that does not accrue prior to the litigation triggering the bar. Thus, the present cause of action had not accrued, and claim preclusion cannot bar it now.

Issue preclusion bars relitigation of common factual issues between the same or related parties, but the issue must have been actually litigated and essential to a valid and final personal judgment in the first action and here it is not certain that the issues were actually litigated and decided by the court.

Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine intended to prevent litigants from adopting a position inconsistent with a stance taken in a prior litigation. Further, the court did not rely upon his assertions in rendering its decision in the prior case. Thus, judicial estoppel does not apply. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further circuit court proceedings.

In this case, there was no final order entered regarding the claim that ex-husband is attempting to preclude by his assertion of res judicata. The rule to show cause issued on February 7, is discharged. Therefore, the circuit court erred in dismissing this case on the ground that plaintiff did not timely file his notice of tort claim. In addition, an adverse inference instruction for spoliation of evidence is proper only where the party has acted in bad faith or with intentional conduct calculated to suppress the truth, which was not shown in this case.

Certain testimony of a city code inspector must be excluded in any retrial as lacking in relevancy. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the claims of the most severely injured plaintiff from those of the other three plaintiffs, but it was error to permit amendment of the ad damnum clauses of three plaintiffs after completion of all of the evidence.

The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for a new trial. The ultimate issues of fact in a prior larceny trial, in which the defendant was acquitted, were different from those in the present perjury trial. Thus, the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not err in finding the Commonwealth was not collaterally estopped from bringing the indictment for perjury. The evidence, including circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to support a finding of guilt on the required elements of the perjury offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

He did not claim the delay in any way prejudiced his defense of the SVPA petition. The implied consent law also does not violate the Virginia Constitution. Latitude Properties, Inc. The judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment and enforcing liens upon the potential income tax refunds of debtors is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Final judgment upholding the conviction in this case is entered. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and final judgment is entered on this appeal. Judicial estoppel is not an affirmative defense that is waived if not pled, thus it was not waived by the failure of the defamation defendants to raise it in their pleadings, and the circuit court had the authority to raise and apply the doctrine sua sponte.

The judgment dismissing this action on summary judgment is affirmed. The existence of a confidential relationship is insufficient, alone, to establish the second element. It must be accompanied by activity on the part of the dominant person in procuring or preparing the will in his favor before a presumption of undue influence will arise. In this case, the brother is not a beneficiary under either the will or the trust, and neither his entitlement to compensation as executor and trustee, nor his power as trustee to choose beneficiaries of certain trust property make him a beneficiary.

The uncertain and contingent possibility that the brother might divert and distribute trust property to himself does not make him a beneficiary. This doctrine, however, does not compel positive action by the promisor to bring about the performance of the condition. Thus, the duty of a vendor to a broker is fulfilled by remaining passive and neutral; the condition, upon which the payment of commissions is made to depend, is waived only where the vendor is active to prevent or hinder its performance. Recovery of damages for preventing the performance of a condition also requires proof of causation.

In this case, evidence was absent that the seller wrongfully prevented satisfaction of the contractual closing condition in excess of its legal rights. The judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered for the defendant seller on this appeal. That determination is reversed, and the case is remanded for consideration of all remaining issues. The judgment denying permission to proceed in forma pauperis is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The operative agreements constituting an assumption reinsurance transaction did not provide a contractual basis for the claims for legal fees and costs.

The judgment of the Commission is affirmed. Strip searches of inmates and detainees will not violate the Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable in light of institutional security interests. Nor did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for possession of drugs with intent to distribute. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and final judgment is entered upholding the conviction. The appeal in the mandamus proceeding is dismissed. The judgment of the circuit court with respect to the stay and injunctive relief is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The public policy of Virginia has been to uphold the validity of the marriage status as for the best interest of society, and the presumption of the validity of a marriage is one of the strongest presumptions known to the law. Nor does any provision of the Code limit solemnization only to a ceremony.

Even if the courts were to infer a particular sequence for the license and solemnization requirements, a violation of that judicially implied requirement would not render the parties' marriage either void ab initio or voidable. The marriage was valid and the circuit court, therefore, had authority to distribute the marital assets consistent with the marital agreement and to continue its adjudication of the divorce proceeding.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the matter is remanded to that court for remand to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. They serve to assist the circuit court, not to supplant it. Their work is subject to review by the circuit court, which may accept or reject it, in whole or in part. Commissioners are not lower tribunals from which appeals are taken. In this case, the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case and its decisions are reviewed, not those of the commissioner of accounts.

However, it was error to grant summary judgment on the fraudulent conveyance claim on the theory that a prima facie case could not be established when the recipient is a third party creditor with a higher security interest. In addition, the circuit court erred by applying a clear and convincing standard of proof to a claim for successor entity liability based on the mere continuation of business theory. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

For the reasons assigned in this opinion, the judgment is affirmed. The statutorily prescribed three-year term is both a mandatory minimum and a mandatory maximum sentence. Community Management Corp. She won that litigation, and then instituted the present separate action as plaintiff to recover her legal fees from that prior case, relying on a contractual provision in the confidentiality agreement on which the corporation previously sued, which allows fee recovery by a prevailing party in confidential information disputes. The judgment dismissing the present fee action is affirmed.

Yancey Lumber Corp. At the same time, the evidence shows that the modifications will not create an unreasonable burden on the defendant's servient. Thus, it cannot be said that the circuit court, by granting plaintiff the right to make these limited modifications, failed to maintain a balance in the interests of the parties, respectively, as dominant and servient landowners.

McKinley Chiropractic Ctr. Here, the patient never obtained a judgment against the insured and relinquished all existing and future rights to recover from the insurer or its insured as part of the settlement of the personal injury claim. Final judgment is entered for the insurance company. Combined case with Record Nos. In a prosecution for making an unlawful communication with a child under this statute, the Commonwealth was not required to prove completion of taking indecent liberties. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the defendant's conviction is affirmed. He was accorded due process in an evidentiary hearing and could be heard and present evidence, and he had counsel throughout.

The propriety of the sentence imposed and the involuntary civil commitment order are not challenged. The arguments that the ends of justice exception should be applied because the circuit court ignored the seriousness of his mental illness and should have committed defendant directly to inpatient hospitalization, making the imprisonment a manifest injustice, is rejected.

Shortest married couple - Guinness World Records

The five-year prison sentence is for a crime committed before defendant's alleged temporary insanity, to which he pled guilty after recovering from that condition. Statutes do not prescribe a sequence for imposition of incarceration for one offense in relation to involuntary civil commitment for different crimes committed in a later period of temporary insanity. Prisons are required to provide treatment, and defendant can also be transferred to a facility outside of the Department of Corrections if it is determined that he cannot be provided the kind of care required during incarceration.

Thus the ends of justice exception under Rule will not be applied to review the errors alleged, and the judgments of the circuit court are affirmed. The judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered on this appeal for the city. Browntown Valley Assocs. Education Assn. The judgment is reversed and the issue of any attorney fee recovery is remanded to the circuit court.

School Board v. The test is not whether a release explicitly lists a potential future claim, but whether the parties intended to release such a claim. The judgments of the circuit court are affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the matter is remanded for calculation of the refund due to the taxpayer. The only factor statutorily relevant to determining the adequacy of the petitioner's reason for filing the application was the reason alleged.

It cannot be discerned, without evidence, whether the alleged religious conversion is sincere. In addition, plaintiff presented no evidence that a lack of disclosures by the defendant physician prevented her from making an informed decision with respect to the surgery on the part of her body to be operated on, or that she would not have elected to have the surgery in that location in the face of proper disclosures.

Without any evidence to establish proximate causation, the informed consent claim fails as a matter of law. The judgment is reversed and the action is remanded for retrial on the negligence claims. Plaintiff failed, at the summary judgment stage, to come forward with expert opinion establishing certain alleged improper statements made by the defendant doctor were a proximate cause of her alleged injuries in the form of aggravation of preexisting mental or physical conditions. The complaint is dismissed.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the gas utility's petition for declaratory judgment is dismissed. Office of Exec. The judgment of the circuit court denying enforcement of an FOIA request directed to the Office of the Executive Secretary is affirmed. Nor did the court err in excluding from evidence certain tax assessment records offered as proof of the value of the decedent's home, or in striking the plaintiff's evidence on a claim for civil conspiracy. Because an award of attorney's fees to the defendant daughter was based on the ruling in her favor on her motion to strike, that award is vacated.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. This matter is remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion. On the issue of self-defense in determining who was the aggressor or what was the reasonable apprehension of the defendant for his safety, the issue is what the victim probably did, and such evidence is admissible even when the defendant is unaware of it. Here, however, assuming without deciding that exclusion of certain alleged threats made by the victim against the defendant should have been admitted, such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence.

Where an accused adduces evidence that he acted in self-defense, evidence of specific acts is admissible to show the character of the decedent for turbulence and violence, even if the accused is unaware of such character, but here the trial court did not err in allowing recent episodes while excluding more temporally remote acts of the victim. Failure to make a timely proffer of conflicting testimony or to make a timely motion for mistrial concerning a comment made by the prosecutor in closing argument foreclose consideration of these matters on appeal. The original complaint sounded wholly in tort and did not state a prima facie cause of action for inverse condemnation.

The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the action is remanded for further proceedings in light of this opinion. To preserve judicial resources and protect unwitting defendants, this habitual filing of meritless appeals is now addressed. Factors considered include a history of 1 filing duplicative, vexatious lawsuits, 2 without any objective good faith basis, and 3 at the expense of the court system and opposing parties.

Exercising its inherent power to protect against repetitious and harassing conduct that abuses the judicial process, and to prevent continued filing of frivolous petitions for appeal, this litigant shall be prohibited from filing any petition for appeal, motion, pleading, or other filing without 1 obtaining the services of a practicing Virginia attorney, whose filings would be subject to Code 8. The Clerk is instructed to comply with this order as it pertains to future filings. In a circumstantial case, the Commonwealth must overcome the presumption of innocence and exclude all reasonable conclusions inconsistent with guilt, which requires an unbroken evidentiary chain of necessary circumstances showing that both the corpus delicti and the criminal agency of the accused have been proved to the exclusion of any other rational hypothesis and to a moral certainty.

Here, the totality of the evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to reject the defendant's hypothesis that someone else was the criminal agent who placed stolen items in a vehicle linked to him by documentary and testimonial evidence. As the prevailing party below, the Commonwealth is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences that flow from the evidence.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and final judgment reinstating the convictions is entered on this appeal. While the intent instruction could have been amended to include reference to the defendant's "acts, conduct and statements," where other instructions fully and fairly cover the principles of law governing the case, the trial court does not err in refusing an additional instruction language on the same subject.

In light of the separate instruction regarding jury consideration of the defendant's statements, the instructions, taken as a whole, stated the law clearly and covered all issues fairly raised by the evidence. In this case, the conviction order and the sentencing order were entered in and neither was modified, vacated or suspended within 21 days after their entry. Accordingly, they became final and the trial court lost jurisdiction to modify the conviction in this case. An oral understanding of the trial court, prosecutor, and defense counsel not embodied in a plea agreement or an order suspending, modifying or vacating the conviction and sentencing orders did not afford jurisdiction to the trial court to enter the relief sought long after the orders were entered.

Neither the entry of orders nunc pro tunc nor the doctrine of orders void ab initio applies here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the circuit court's disposition is affirmed. Signature on the memoranda by a vice president of the company on the claimant line, crossing out the agent option, did not cause the trustee any prejudice and it was sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the statute.

The judgment of the circuit court upholding the liens is affirmed. The record in the case confirms beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational factfinder would have found the defendant guilty absent the claimed error, in light of the limited role that the challenged evidence played at trial, coupled with the overwhelming and unchallenged evidence of defendant's guilt. Thus, applying the standard for review of alleged constitutional errors, the claimed error of trial court was harmless as a matter of law, and the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Defendant's conviction for possession of heroin with the intent to distribute, third or subsequent offense, is reinstated. There is no time requirement for entry of an order recording the return of an indictment in open court. The Code of Virginia evinces a clear legislative policy that the requirement of an indictment in the prosecution for a felony may be waived, and hence is not jurisdictional. Thus, failure of the record to show affirmatively that the indictment was returned into court by the grand jury is not such a defect as will render null and void the judgment of conviction based thereon.

Defendant was subject to the requirement of Rule 3A:9 b 1 and c to challenge the indictment at least seven days before his trial, which he concedes he did not do. Because he did not argue that there was good cause to excuse this failure as provided in Rule 3A:9 d , he waived the right to object to the indictment. The present complaint failed to state a cognizable claim, and the circuit court did not err in sustaining the insurer's demurrer. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and this case is remanded for trial.

Sea Oats Condo. Nor is it necessary for a party to provide advance notice of the amount of fees it will seek if successful. This statute makes no distinction between compensated and uncompensated sureties, and the right to reimbursement is expressly available to any person liable as a guarantor. Here, if plaintiff made any gift at all it was in his decision to act as an accommodation surety rather than a compensated surety. The facts here triggered a right to reimbursement under this section, with interest from the time of payment, and five percent damages on such amount, and he is entitled to judgment.

Table of Contents

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for determination of the amount which is due to the plaintiff under the statute. Nor did the court abuse its discretion in refusing the defendant's proffered jury instruction on carjacking, in light of a model instruction the trial court granted, which fully and accurately covered the carjacking offense. Thus, it was an abuse of discretion to permit this testimony.

However, the defendant doctor's own testimony regarding the circumstances that impacted or would have impacted his decision to perform surgery was not expert opinion but, instead, factual testimony, and its admission was not an abuse of discretion.

Gary r bratton marriage record
Gary r bratton marriage record
Gary r bratton marriage record
Gary r bratton marriage record
Gary r bratton marriage record

Related gary r bratton marriage record

Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved