Supreme Court of Virginia Decisions
The appellate jurisdiction of the Virginia Supreme Court is largely discretionary. A party may appeal from a lower court to the Supreme Court as a matter of right only if a case involves the death penalty, the disbarment of an attorney, or the State Corporation Commission. In addition to its appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus, and actual innocence. Its original jurisdiction also extends to matters related to the discipline, removal, or retirement of judges, which are filed by the Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission.
Seven justices serve on the Virginia Supreme Court, which is located in Richmond. A candidate may submit a pre-appointment application to the Governor of Virginia, or an organization may nominate a candidate. Virginia uses the legislative selection method to appoint its justices. In most cases, therefore, a justice will announce that they plan to retire after the next meeting of the General Assembly. If a vacancy arises without notice while the legislature is not in session, the Governor has the authority to appoint a temporary replacement. The General Assembly then will need to determine whether to grant a full term to that justice when it next meets.
Each justice serves a term of 12 years. When their term expires, the General Assembly will determine whether to retain them. Virginia imposes a mandatory retirement age of 70 on its justices. However, the Supreme Court may allow up to five retired justices to serve one-year terms as senior justices. They may assist with reviewing writs and may review other cases if an active justice is not available, such as when they are recused.
- 2024 (6)
- 2023 (28)
- 2022 (45)
- 2021 (55)
- 2020 (55)
- 2019 (77)
- 2018 (79)
- 2017 (78)
- 2016 (78)
- 2015 (66)
- 2014 (74)
- 2013 (62)
- 2012 (115)
- 2011 (110)
- 2010 (113)
- 2009 (108)
- 2008 (111)
- 2007 (135)
- 2006 (116)
- 2005 (105)
- 2004 (149)
- 2003 (112)
- 2002 (128)
- 2001 (139)
- 2000 (150)
- 1999 (135)
- 1998 (149)
- 1997 (129)
- 1996 (116)
- 1995 (76)
- 1994 (120)
- 1993 (114)
- 1992 (106)
- 1991 (108)
- 1990 (136)
- 1989 (147)
- 1988 (135)
- 1987 (118)
- 1986 (112)
- 1985 (125)
- 1984 (147)
- 1983 (138)
- 1982 (130)
- 1981 (147)
- 1980 (133)
- 1979 (124)
- 1978 (112)
- 1977 (123)
- 1976 (136)
- 1975 (140)
- 1974 (126)
- 1973 (122)
- 1972 (148)
- 1971 (105)
- 1970 (98)
- 1969 (77)
- 1968 (95)
- 1967 (76)
- 1966 (100)
- 1965 (89)
- 1964 (84)
- 1963 (77)
- 1962 (75)
- 1961 (85)
- 1960 (87)
- 1959 (74)
- 1958 (73)
- 1957 (81)
- 1956 (93)
- 1955 (91)
- 1954 (102)
- 1953 (98)
- 1952 (116)
- 1951 (83)
- 1950 (106)
- 1949 (17)
- 1947 (1)
- 1938 (12)
- 1937 (13)
- 1936 (11)
- 1935 (9)
- 1934 (5)
- 1933 (7)
- 1932 (4)
- 1931 (3)
- 1930 (1)
- 1929 (5)
- 1928 (4)
- 1927 (5)
- 1926 (3)
- 1925 (4)
- 1909 (1)
- 1854 (1)
Recent Decisions From the Supreme Court of Virginia
Date: February 15, 2024
Docket Number: 230115
Justia Opinion Summary: In Virginia, Bryant McCants arranged for his 1970 Ford Mustang Mach 1 to be repaired at a shop operated by CD & PB Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Maaco Collision Repair & Auto Painting. The repair shop was managed…
Date: February 8, 2024
Docket Number: 220445
Justia Opinion Summary: The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case of Dwayne Lamont Sample, Jr., who was convicted of attempted robbery. Sample challenged his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress…
Date: December 14, 2023
Docket Number: 211061
Justia Opinion Summary: In this case, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of Peter Vlaming, a high school French teacher who was terminated by the West Point School Board for refusing to use a transgender student's preferred pronouns.…
Date: December 14, 2023
Docket Number: 211114
Justia Opinion Summary: In this case, Andrew Schmuhl ("Schmuhl") appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. At his trial, Schmuhl had claimed he was involuntarily intoxicated due to prescription medications at the time of…
Date: December 14, 2023
Docket Number: 230127
Justia Opinion Summary: In this case, the Supreme Court of Virginia was asked to interpret Code § 19.2-306.1, a statute enacted in 2021 that addresses the range of punishment a court may impose upon the revocation of a suspended sentence. The…
Date: November 30, 2023
Docket Number: 230400
Justia Opinion Summary: The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the State Corporation Commission dismissing Verizon Virginia LLC's petition for a declaratory judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Commission…
Date: November 22, 2023
Docket Number: 220596
Justia Opinion Summary: The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's sentence for malicious wounding, holding that the court of appeals erred by reversing the trial court's restitution order as violative…
Date: October 19, 2023
Docket Number: 210389
Justia Opinion Summary: The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court in this real property dispute, holding that the escheat provision of Va. Code 58.1-3967, as applied to the factual circumstances of this case, violated Va.…
Date: October 19, 2023
Docket Number: 220536
Justia Opinion Summary: The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions of three counts of aggravated sexual battery by a parent under Va. Code 18.2-67.3 and four counts of taking indecent…
Date: October 19, 2023
Docket Number: 220715
Justia Opinion Summary: The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction, after a jury trial, of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, third or subsequent offense, and possession of…
Date: October 12, 2023
Docket Number: 230172
Justia Opinion Summary: The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) failed timely to release him from prison…
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.