Tort Law

Brien Roche

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Parties.For more information about litigation see the pages on Wikipedia.

Parties-Statutes

See Va. Code § 8.01-15.1 dealing with actions brought by an anonymous plaintiff.

See Va. Code § 8.01-397 as to unavailability of party.

See Va. Code § 50-73.97 clarifying that partnership has capacity with or without joinder of one or more of its partners to sue or be sued in its own name.

Parties-Cases

2016 Richmond v. Volk, 291 Va. 60, 781 S.E.2d 191.
In original Complaint correct defendant involved in auto collision was identified but incorrect last name was used. This was a misnomer. Misnomer was not corrected in the original filing. Case was nonsuited and then refiled within six (6) months. Within the refiled action the defendant was correctly identified. The statute of limitations was tolled.

2009 Estate of James v. Peyton, 277 Va. 443, 674 S.E.2d 864.
Plaintiff filed suit after defendant had passed away. Plaintiff’s counsel was unaware of that and subsequently amended so as to substitute “The Estate of Robert Judson James, Administrator, Edward F. Gentry, Esquire.” The estate was not the proper defendant and as such this constitutes a misjoinder, not a misnomer, and therefore the action should be dismissed.

2001 America Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co., 261 Va. 350, 542 S.E.2d 377.
Anonymous corporation sought subpoena duces tecum requiring internet service provider to disclose identities of John Doe defendants who allegedly defamed corporation and published confidential material on internet. Trial court improperly refused to quash subpoena or enter protective order. Since action was brought under Uniform Foreign Deposition Act, this was a final order. Supreme court held that corporation could not proceed anonymously under the Uniform Foreign Deposition Act. Although there is no absolute bar against a party proceeding anonymously in a lawsuit, court must consider constitutional mandate of openness of judicial process and only in unusual circumstances involving irreparable harm would anonymity be allowed. The underlying action had been initiated in Indiana, although comity is to be encouraged among court systems, it is not obligatory in this instance and supreme court chose to disallow action in anonymous fashion.

2001 Cha v. Korean Presbyterian Church of Wash., 262 Va. 604, 553 S.E.2d 511.
Former pastor brought wrongful termination, tortious interference with employment, and defamation claims against church and individual members. Supreme court held that under Free Exercise Clause, trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to resolve claims against church and its members.

1992 Harris v. T.I., Inc., 243 Va. 63, 413 S.E.2d 605.
Corporate defendant number one’s existence terminated prior to arising of cause of action. Corporate defendant number two assumed certain liabilities arising out of certain contract. General rule is that terminated corporation is not liable for liability arising after termination, therefore corporate defendant number one is dismissed. Corporate defendant number two is not liable because it did not agree to assume product liabilities of corporate defendant number one. Furthermore, it is not the successor to corporate defendant number one.

1989 Wells v. Lorcom House Condo. Council, 237 Va. 247, 377 S.E.2d 381.
Plaintiff was juridical nonentity and therefore could not bring suit. It was improper to allow amendment to join new plaintiff. Proper procedure was to nonsuit and file new action.

1982 Wisniewski v. Johnson, 223 Va. 141, 286 S.E.2d 223.
Certificate of limited partnership held invalid when it was simply acknowledged but not sworn to. As result, defendants were held to be general partners.

1973 McCormick v. Romans & Gunn, 214 Va. 144, 198 S.E.2d 651.
Parties.Inclusion of partnership name as defendant not essential. Common law rule prevails in Virginia.

1964 Hudgins v. Jones, 205 Va. 495, 138 S.E.2d 16.
Parties.Insurance company is real party in interest in this subrogated action. Since company was named in pleadings, it is not error to require that it be named in caption.