Supreme Court of Virginia

Sarah Crawford left an abusive relationship with her husband, Anthony Dale Crawford. She remained fearful of him and took various precautions to protect herself, including applying for an order of protection. She signed an affidavit for the order, in which she recounted instances of past abuse, including threats to her life. The following month, she was found murdered and evidence overwhelmingly pointed to her estranged husband. Before the trial, Anthony made a motion to suppress the affidavit, arguing that the document was testimonial hearsay.

In Doe v. Doe, 222 Va. 736 (1981), the appellee, the child’s father and stepmother, had permanent custody and sought adoption of the child because the appellant-mother was in a lesbian relationship in the same household that the child visited in. The lower court granted the adoption and severed the appellant’s parental rights, stating that her lifestyle would cause detrimental harm to the child.

The plaintiff, the mother of 10-year-old girl, sued the defendant, the Tabernacle Baptist Church, alleging that her daughter had been repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted by an employee of the church. The plaintiff alleged that the church knew or should have known that its employee had recently been convicted of aggravated sexual assault on a young girl, was currently on probation for this offense, and that a condition of his probation was that he not be involved with children.

In the case Leonard v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 479 (2018), a transgender inmate was seeking a name change. Inmates seeking a name change must establish good cause, which then permits the court to make a merits-based decision at a hearing. If an applicant alleges sufficient facts, taken as true, then the court must find good cause. The applicant stated that she was transgender and that a name change would psychologically benefit her. The lower court denied her application without scheduling a hearing for lack of good cause.

Two plaintiffs, A and B, sued their former employer for wrongful termination, one based on racial discrimination and the other based on gender discrimination. Plaintiff B alleged that her supervisor touched her sexually without her consent and, when she complained, he fired her. The lower courts dismissed the actions, concluding that, pursuant to the employment-at-will doctrine, the plaintiffs were at-will employees who could be terminated for any or no reason at all.

The plaintiff sued her former supervisor and former employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to her supervisor’s harassment, which consisted of sexist and belittling remarks over an extended period of time.

The plaintiff sued her former supervisor and former employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to her supervisor’s harassment, which consisted of sexist and belittling remarks over an extended period of time.

Mitchem filed a motion for judgment against her former employer, Counts, alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy following her refusal to have a sexual relationship with him. She argued that her discharge violated Virginia’s policy “that all persons . . .

The defendant appealed his convictions for rape and sodomy, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to convict him, and that the victim was incapacitated due to voluntary intoxication. The victim suffered from bipolar disorder and substance abuse. She was found nonresponsive and half-naked behind a convenience store with rape-related injuries. She had high amounts of cocaine and alcohol in her blood, but low amounts of her prescribed lithium.

The plaintiff alleged that she was raped several times by a police officer who had been assigned to help her deal with her son’s behavioral issues. The plaintiff reported the rapes to municipal mental health and domestic abuse entities, and she alleged that these entities violated their statutory duty to report these incidents or take further action. Consequently, the plaintiff sued the Alexandria Police Department for intentional tort and negligent hiring.