Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

Podcast de Ben Glass, Steve Emmert

Disfruta 30 días gratis

4,99 € / mes después de la prueba.Cancela cuando quieras.

Prueba gratis
Phone screen with podimo app open surrounded by emojis

Más de 1 millón de oyentes

Podimo te va a encantar, y no sólo a ti

Valorado con 4,7 en la App Store

Acerca de Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

Public domain audio of oral arguments from the Supreme Court of Virginia. Whether you're a lawyer, law student, or just an interested citizen, this podcast is a great way to learn how the Supreme Court of Virginia operates and what's expected of each side in a case. Not affiliated with the Supreme Court of VA. Created by entrepreneurs.

Todos los episodios

181 episodios
episode 2020 November Burke v. Young artwork
2020 November Burke v. Young

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com [http://www.benglassreferrals.com/] - www.Virginia-Appeals.com [http://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 [http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/200095.pdf]

11 dic 2020 - 32 min
episode 2020 November Dodd v. Clarke artwork
2020 November Dodd v. Clarke

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com [http://www.benglassreferrals.com/] - www.Virginia-Appeals.com [http://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 [http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/200091.pdf]

11 dic 2020 - 22 min
episode 2020 November Goldberg v. Commonwealth artwork
2020 November Goldberg v. Commonwealth

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com [http://www.benglassreferrals.com/] - www.Virginia-Appeals.com [http://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 [http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191701.pdf]

11 dic 2020 - 22 min
episode 2020 November Palmyra v. Commissioner of Highways artwork
2020 November Palmyra v. Commissioner of Highways

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 [http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191680.pdf]

07 dic 2020 - 34 min
episode 2020 November Smith v. Bank of America artwork
2020 November Smith v. Bank of America

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com [http://www.benglassreferrals.com/] - www.Virginia-Appeals.com [http://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 [http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191559.pdf]

07 dic 2020 - 31 min
Soy muy de podcasts. Mientras hago la cama, mientras recojo la casa, mientras trabajo… Y en Podimo encuentro podcast que me encantan. De emprendimiento, de salid, de humor… De lo que quiera! Estoy encantada 👍
Soy muy de podcasts. Mientras hago la cama, mientras recojo la casa, mientras trabajo… Y en Podimo encuentro podcast que me encantan. De emprendimiento, de salid, de humor… De lo que quiera! Estoy encantada 👍
MI TOC es feliz, que maravilla. Ordenador, limpio, sugerencias de categorías nuevas a explorar!!!
Me suscribi con los 14 días de prueba para escuchar el Podcast de Misterios Cotidianos, pero al final me quedo mas tiempo porque hacia tiempo que no me reía tanto. Tiene Podcast muy buenos y la aplicación funciona bien.
App ligera, eficiente, encuentras rápido tus podcast favoritos. Diseño sencillo y bonito. me gustó.
contenidos frescos e inteligentes
La App va francamente bien y el precio me parece muy justo para pagar a gente que nos da horas y horas de contenido. Espero poder seguir usándola asiduamente.
Phone screen with podimo app open surrounded by emojis

Valorado con 4,7 en la App Store

Disfruta 30 días gratis

4,99 € / mes después de la prueba.Cancela cuando quieras.

Podcasts exclusivos

Sin anuncios

Podcast gratuitos

Audiolibros

20 horas / mes

Prueba gratis

Sólo en Podimo

Audiolibros populares