Dooley v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. Although an auto liability policy failed to specify any specific amount of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provided, that omission did not mean the policy terms prohibiting “stacking,” or combining coverage for multiple insured vehicles, were ambiguous under Virginia law and would allow stacking. The 4th Circuit affirms the district court’s denial of additional coverage to appellant
Scoggins v. Lee’s Crossing Homeowners Ass’n A homeowners association for Lee’s Crossing subdivision wins a housing discrimination suit under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 filed by a family who was denied the right for their disabled adult son to use an all-terrain vehicle on the subdivision’s unpaved roads; the 4th Circuit affirms summary judgment for the HOA and on the HOA’s cross-appeal, affirms denial of their request for attorney’s fees
Williams v. Ozmint Restoration of a prison inmate’s visiting privileges has mooted his appeal of suspension of those privileges for a two-year period as a penalty for the inmate’s suspected receipt of contraband; the 4th Circuit further concludes that the prison warden who imposed the suspicion is shielded by qualified immunity because the inmate did not have a clearly established right to visitation.
Wilson v. Dollar General Corp. An employee of a chain-store distribution center who filed his disability discrimination claim with the EEOC before he filed his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition has standing to pursue his discrimination claim, the 4th Circuit says, but the claim has no merit as the employee did not show he could perform the essential functions of his job had he been granted a brief additional leave for treatment of his vision impairment.
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The 4th Circuit affirms issuance of a water quality permit under the Clean Water Act to Highland Mining Company, on the basis that a proposed surface coal mine adjacent to a stream in Logan County would not damage water quality or violate water quality standards.
Boykin Contracting, Inc. v. Kirby Even though the defendant-promoter, Wayne Kirby, did not sign the lease on the bingo space until after the plaintiff-contractor’s work was completed, Kirby was listed as the “owner” on the building permit application, which was issued before the contractor started work, and as the “owner” on the certificate of occupancy, which was issued after the contractor completed its work. Furthermore, Kirby was the point person for all the work. Kirby personally benefited from the contractor’s work.
State v. Lewis Even though defendant and his co-defendant implicated each other, each testified that the other acted alone, and the state presented no evidence that they acted together.
Proctor v. Whitlark & Whitlark Based on statutes originally adopted as part of the Statutes of Anne, and an S.C. Supreme Court decision from a time when video poker gambling was legal, the court rules that the defense of in pari delicto has been abrogated with regard to losses sustained through illegal gambling.
Gibbs v. State Even though the show-up identification procedures used by the police were unduly suggestive and trial counsel was ineffective in failing to contemporaneously object, the two witnesses in question had previously identified petitioner as the robber from a photographic line-up; therefore, the subsequent show-up may be characterized as merely confirmatory and thus reliable, despite the suggestive procedure.
Town of Hollywood v. Floyd Where the defendant-developers wanted to put a subdivision on a dangerous curve on a narrow road, the plaintiff-town did not violate the developers’ equal protection rights when the town required the developers to conduct a traffic study. The developers failed to point to any similarly situated developments that received different treatment: Stono Plantation was approved long before the town adopted its ordinances; Wide Awake Park is a public park rather than a subdivision, was already developed when the town acquired it, and required consolidation rather than subdivision of lots; and Holly Grove is a low-income, “planned development” subject to a different approval process than residential subdivisions.
Next Page »
