Civil Law Commons^™

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Practice And Procedure, Donald P. Boyle Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

In Burroughs v. Palumbo, defendant was served with process through the Secretary of the Commonwealth. The grounds of defense was due to be filed on September 22, 1994. On September 29, 1994, defendant filed the notice of removal in federal court. On September 30, 1994, the state court entered default judgment against defendant. Later that same day, defendant filed the notice of removal with the state court. Between the time that defendant filed the notice of removal in federal court and the time that he filed it with the state court, both courts had jurisdiction over the case; therefore the …

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Practice And Procedure, Donald P. Boyle Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

Virginia courts and the General Assembly have effected a number of changes in civil practice and procedure during the past year. This article focuses on some significant developments of interest to the general litigation attorney.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Practice And Procedure, David D. Hopper

University of Richmond Law Review

Virginia courts and the General Assembly have effected a number of changes in civil practice and procedure during the past year. This article focuses on some significant developments of interest to the general litigation attorney. Matters affecting real property, juveniles, and construction laws are treated elsewhere in this volume.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Practice And Procedure, George J. Dancigers, A. William Charters

University of Richmond Law Review

This article reviews recent developments and changes in legislation, case law, and Virginia Supreme Court Rules affecting civil litigation. Its scope does not extend to criminal procedure or to topics unique to equity practice.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Procedure And Practice, George J. Dancigers, Michelle Redavid Rack

University of Richmond Law Review

This article reviews recent developments and changes in legislation, case law, and Virginia Supreme Court Rules affecting civil litigation. The scope of the paper does not extend to criminal procedure or topics unique to equity practice.

Special Problems In Civil Procedure - Complex Litigation, Francis H. Hare Jr., Judge Robert M. Parker, Gerald A. Connell, Mary Kay Kane

University of Richmond Law Review Symposium

"Organization and Presentation of a Complex Case" lecture given by Francis H. Hare Jr., a partner in the law firm of Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, in Birmingham, Alabama.

"Judicial Management of Complex Cases" lecture given by the Honorable Robert M. Parker, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

"Complex Litigation in the Public Sector" lecture given by Gerald A. Connell, a member of the firm of Baker & Hostetler, in Washington, D.C.

"The Future of Complex Litigation" lecture given by Mary Kay Kane, academic dean and Professor of Law at Hastings College …

The Specificity Of Pleading In Modern Civil Practice: Addressing Common Misconceptions, Ian James Wilson, William Louis Payne

University of Richmond Law Review

The pleading procedure serves as the foundation for the entire legal process. Pleadings focus the issues, narrow the evidence admissible at trial, apprise the adverse party and the court of the matter in dispute, and provide the extent of the res judicata effect of the judgment. To secure the foundation and to effectuate the purposes of the pleading procedure, it is imperative that the pleading set forth sufficient allegations. The standard for determining the sufficiency of the allegations is referred to as the specificity requirement and serves as the focus of this Note.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Procedure And Practice, W. Hamilton Bryson

University of Richmond Law Review

Rules 2:4 and 3:3(c) of the Rules of Virginia Supreme Court ("Rules of Court") require the dismissal of an action if service of process is not accomplished within one year after the filing thereof unless the plaintiff can show "due diligence" or good cause for the delay. Since the plaintiff can get personal service on a defendant who has absconded by means of the general long arm statute, it will be a heavy burden in practice to show due diligence or good cause or it will be a highly unusual situation. Recently, two issues have arisen regarding these rules.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Procedure And Practice, W. Hamilton Bryson

University of Richmond Law Review

This article considers recent developments in the field of Virginia civil procedure and practice, including statutes, rules of court, and opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia that have appeared between May 1986 and May 1987. This article also comments on cases in volumes five through eight of Virginia Circuit Court Opinions, many of which were decided before 1986. It is appropriate to mention them here since they were only recently made generally available through publication. In order to facilitate the discussion of numerous Virginia Code sections, they will be referred to in …

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Procedure And Practice, W. Hamilton Bryson

University of Richmond Law Review

This article considers recent developments in the field of Virginia civil procedure and practice, including statutes, rules of court, and opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia that have appeared between May 1985 and May 1986. This article also comments on cases in volumes three and four of Virginia Circuit Court Opinions, many of which were decided before 1985, but it is appropriate to mention them here since they were only recently made generally available through publication.

Spoliation: Civil Liability For Destruction Of Evidence, Andrea H. Rowse

University of Richmond Law Review

Intentional destruction of evidence has become a serious legal problem. Recently, the A.H. Robins Company was accused of intentionally destroying incriminating documents relevant to Dalkon Shield litigation. Even documents the court ordered to be preserved were allegedly destroyed by an attorney representing the company. The A.H. Robins Company is not the only corporation accused of intentionally destroying evidence. An attorney representing the Eastman-Kodak Company in an antitrust suit admitted that he destroyed documents relating to the litigation.

Libel And Slander In Virginia, Thomas E. Spahn

University of Richmond Law Review

The law of libel and slander in Virginia is unsettled. Even defining the terms is difficult. While many states classify libel and slander as separate torts, in Virginia defamation encompasses them both. Moreover, there are two separate definitions of "defamation per se" in Virginia. There are also two types of "malice" which are applicable in defamation actions; and to make matters worse, one type of "malice" which actually is not malice at all is called "actual malice."

Non-Jury Trial Of Civil Litigation: Justifying A Complexity Exception To The Seventh Amendment, Barrett E. Pope

University of Richmond Law Review

The seventh amendment to the United States Constitution states that "[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."' When Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the right to jury trial at common law remained undisturbed.

Private Causes Of Action From Federal Statutes: A Strict Standard For Implication By Sole Reliance On Legislative Intent, William Francis Drewry Gallalee

University of Richmond Law Review

The implication doctrine allows a federal court to create a private cause of action from a federal statute that does not expressly provide for a private remedy. In Cort v. Ash, the Supreme Court articulated a four factor test to determine when this doctrine should be utilized. This comment will provide a brief history of the implication doctrine and of the major Supreme Court decisions that culminated in the Cort test. Relevant Supreme Court decisions after Cort,will then be examined to reveal a new, more restrictive approach to implication. Finally, reasons will be advanced that justify this stricter approach.

Children's Rights: A Movement In Search Of Meaning, Stephen W. Bricker

University of Richmond Law Review

The children's rights movement is a unique phenomenon among the various "rights" efforts today. Nonetheless, it shares some superficial similarities with the other antildiscrimination movements. Children's rights, like those of blacks and women, concern the role of an identifiable segment of our society which has traditionally been placed at a legal and social disadvantage. The children's rights movement also espouses the reallocation of legal power as a means to correct this perceived imbalance. Further, it grew out of the same social currents, first apparent in the 1950's and 1960's, which produced the kindred civil rights efforts.

Recovery For Wrongful Death In Virginia: The Effect Of "Dependency" And "Pecuniary Loss"

University of Richmond Law Review

In 1968, substantial changes occurred m the statute allowing recovery for wrongful death in Virginia. The General Assembly established "dependents" as a new class of persons, entitled to recover up to a maximum of $50,000 in proportion to their "pecuniary loss." The statute also designates a class of persons as beneficiaries and allows them to recover an additional $25,000 for solace. Thus, the total amount potentially available to persons who qualify as both a dependent and a statutory beneficiary is $75,000.

Imprisonment Of Indigent Defendants For Nonpayment Of Fines

University of Richmond Law Review

The use of fines as a criminal sanction has been a part of Anglo-American law for over six hundred years. From the inception of this penalty, however, law making bodies have had to deal with the convicted criminal who fails or refuses to pay the fine imposed upon him. The early non-paying offender faced being sold into slavery unless the necessary funds could be produced by family or friends. From such early remedies for default our present more civilized alternative of imprisonment arose.

Civil Rights- Arrest Record As Basis For Job Denial Held Discriminatory

University of Richmond Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that it is an unlawful employment practice to discriminate in hiring because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The purpose of this title is to eliminate discrimination in the labor market so as to afford persons with the ability to perform work and earn their livings the opportunity to do so without penalty because of one of these factors.

Books Received

University of Richmond Law Review

These are the books received by the Law School in 1970.

Recent Decisions

University of Richmond Law Review

This is a summary of the case law from 1969.

Lack Of Due Process In Virginia Contempt Proceeding For Failure To Comply With Order For Support And Alimony

University of Richmond Law Review

At common law a husband had a legal duty' to support his wife and children. Today in Virginia failure to support one's family is not simply a violation of a legal duty, it is a criminal act, carrying a penalty of up to twelve months at hard labor for the delinquent husband. The wife, however, without resorting to this criminal action, can effectuate the same result in a civil proceeding before a divorce court.

Recent Cases

University of Richmond Law Review

This is a summary of the case law from 1966.

Consent To A Search And Seizure By A Member Of The Suspect's Family: A Survey Of The Problems, William H. Ledbetter Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

Constitutional provisions, statutes and common law rules of criminal procedure, desigmed to protect an individual's privacy and security, require that most searches and seizures in the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence be conducted pursuant to a warrant. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, now applicable to the states, Mapp v. Ohio, ex- plicitly limits searches and seizures and outlaws the broad, general warrants and writs of assistance of the eighteenth century.

Personal Injury Damage Arguments, James W. Payne Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

This brief comment deals only with one facet of Certified T. V. & Appliance Co., Inc. v. Harrington. The plaintiff brought an action for personal injuries.