Annual Meeting 2001 (original) (raw)

VIRGINIA STATE BAR - CIRCUIT COURT DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT, INJUNCTIONS & MANDAMUS

Ethics Complaint & Declaratory Judgment Action, 2021

For 45 years, the Virginia State Bar and the Virginia Supreme Court have been violating the Code of Virginia based on lack of authority in the Constitution of Virginia and the Code of Virginia to discipline lawyers practicing law in Virginia. The Virginia State Bar has no Virginia Constitutional or statutory authority to impose any discipline on attorneys practicing law in Virginia. The Code of Virginia § 54.1-3915 - Restrictions as to rules and regulations, states specifically that The Supreme Court of Virginia cannot "promulgate any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys." The Code of Virginia § 54.1-3910. Organization and government of Virginia State Bar, states that specifically that the Virginia State Bar only has authority to "[the] Virginia State Bar shall act as an administrative agency of the Court for the purpose of investigating and reporting violations of rules and regulations adopted by the Court under this article." The Petition explains the severe impact that these violations had and are continuing to have on the Public and attorneys practicing law in Virginia.

Southeastern Association of Law Libraries Annual Meeting

en.scientificcommons.org

deutsch english. Publication View. 44993979. Southeastern Association of Law Libraries Annual Meeting. Adelman, Beth,; Ard, Constance,; Baker, Jan,; Beatty, John,; Beck, Erika,; Behrens, Jennifer,; Blaine, Billie J.,; Bluh, Pamela,; Bradsher, Elizabeth D.,; ...

Court of Appeals of Virginia

APPELLANT'S BRIEF - VIRGINIA COURT OF APPEALS, 2022

THE TRIAL COURT, JUDGE LON E. FARRIS FROM THE 31ST VIRGINIA JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (JUDGE FARRIS OR TRIAL COURT), ERRED WHEN JUDGE FARRIS APPEARED WITHOUT AUTHORITY ON MARCH 8, 2022, PRESIDED OVER PRETRIAL MATTERS, AND ENTERED AN ORDER TO DISMISS DANIEL'S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. IV. THE TRIAL COURT, JUDGE LON E. FARRIS, ERRED IN RULING THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO HOLD A JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS HAD ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT UNDER THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT CITED IN THE UNDERLYING CASE ON APPEAL.

Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association 49:3 (2013)- Whole Issue

2019

Court Review, the quarterly journal of the American Judges Association, invites the submission of unsolicited, original articles, essays, and book reviews. Court Review seeks to provide practical, useful information to the working judges of the United States and Canada. In each issue, we hope to provide information that will be of use to judges in their everyday work, whether in highlighting new procedures or methods of trial, court, or case management, providing substantive information regarding an area of law likely to be encountered by many judges, or by providing background information (such as psychology or other social science research) that can be used by judges in their work. Guidelines for the submission of manuscripts for Court Review are set forth on page 189 of this issue. Court Review reserves the right to edit, condense, or reject material submitted for publication. Advertising: Court Review accepts advertising for products and services of interest to judges. For information, contact Shelley Rockwell at (757) 259-1841. Cover photo, Mary S. Watkins (maryswatkins@ mac.com). The cover photo is of the Madison County Courthouse in Winterset, Iowa. Built in 1876, the courthouse is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. ©2013, American Judges Association, printed in the United States. Court Review is published quarterly by the American Judges Association (AJA). AJA members receive a subscription to Court Review. Non-member subscriptions are available for $35 per volume (four issues per volume). Subscriptions are terminable at the end of any volume upon notice given to the publisher. Prices are subject to change without notice. Second-class postage paid at Williamsburg, Virginia, and additional mailing offices. Address all correspondence about subscriptions, undeliverable copies, and change of address to Association Services, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185-4147. Points of view or opinions expressed in Court Review are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the positions of the National Center for State Courts or the American Judges Association.

Annual Survey of Virginia Law: Business and Corporate Law

University of Richmond Law Review, 1993

The specific violations were: (1) distributions to shareholders which would make the corporation unable to pay its debts as they become due (§ 13.1-653); (2) general standards of conduct for directors (§ 13.1-690); and (3) director liability for unlawful distributions to shareholders (§ 13.01-692).

Survey of Develpoments in West Virginia Law: 1977

West Virginia Law Review, 1977

Other cases dealing with Constitutional Law decided in 1977 included: State v. Boyd, 233 S.E.2d 710 (W. Va. 1977) (constitutional provisions governing due process and self-incrimination of criminal defendant were infringed by interrogation at trial as to reason defendant had not earlier disclosed a defense); Menon v. Davis Memorial Associates, Inc., 235 S.E.2d 817 (W. Va. 1977) (civil plaintiff's rights to due process violated when trial court ruled on the merits of the case without affording plaintiff an opportunity to present evidence in his behalf); State ex rel. Hutzler v. Dostert, 236 S.E.2d 336 (W. Va. 1977) (bail, which must be determined on a case by case basis, deemed to be excessive as to named defendant and his charged offense, thus violating constitutional prohibition against excessive bail); Smoot v. Dingess, 236 S.E.2d 468 (W. Va. 1977) (defendant may not be incarcerated for either civil or criminal contempt upon unsworn testimony and notice of the contempt hearing should be given to the real party in interest); O'Neil v. Parkersburg and Hendrickson v. Parkersburg, 237 S.E.2d 504 (W. Va. 1977) (notice of claim provision that right of victim of governmental tort feasor to sue is absolutely barred should he not give required notices to municipality within thirty days after his cause of action has accrued, violated equal protection and due process clauses and were unconstitutional); Mason County Board of Education v. State Superintendent of Schools, 234 S.E.2d 321 (W. Va. 1977) (county board of education had standing to obtain judicial review of an order of the State Superintendent of Schools requiring the reinstatement of an employee); State ex rel. Preacher v. Sencindiver, 233 S.E.2d 425 (W. Va. 1977) (upheld constitutionality of W. Va. Code § 61-2-1 (1977 Replacement Vol.), felony murder statute, as not erecting an impermissible inference of motive, willfulness and premeditation); State ex rel. State Building Commission v. Casey, 232 S.E.2d 349 (W. Va. 1977) (statute providing for rent-free use of state property by a private corporation is an unconstitutional grant of the credit of the State to such corporation); State ex rel. Kanawha County Building Commission v. Paterno, 233 S.E.2d 332 (W. Va. 1977) (acquisition and construction by the commission of annex through issuance of bonds payable from severence tax revenues were not violative of constitutional provisions limiting contracting of state debts or those granting the state's credit to a county, or those limiting the contracting of county debts); Anderson v. George, 233 S.E.2d 407 (W. Va. 1977) (declared W. VA. CODE § 7-10-4 (1976 Replacement Vol.) unconstitutional because statute did not provide for pre-seizure or post-seizure hearing on the validity of humane officer's statutory powers); State ex rel. Cogar v. Kidd, 234 S.E.2d 899 (W. Va. 1977) (declared portion of embezzlement statute, W. VA. CODE § 61-3-20 (1977 Replacement Vol.) which caused certain presumptions of guilt to be raised, unconstitutional; statute deemed severable with the rest of it remaining valid); State ex rel. Piccirillo v. Follansbee, 233 S.E.2d 419 (W. Va. 1977) (property qualification for candidacy in municipal elections unconstitutional as violative of equal protection, W. VA. CONST. art. III, § 17). 236 S.E.2d 565 (W. Va. 1977).