Virginia’s Constitution automatically disqualifies all persons convicted of any felony from voting unless their civil rights are restored by the Governor. See Va. Const. art. II, § 1. In a recent case, two plaintiffs convicted of felonies, who had completed their sentences, brought suit against several state officials alleging that this provision of Virginia’s Constitution violated the Virginia Readmission Act (the VRA). King v. Youngkin, et al., Civil Action No. 3:23CV408. The VRA is a federal law passed in 1870, which re-admitted Virginia to representation in Congress after the Civil War. A condition to re-admission under the VRA was that Virginia could not change its Constitution to deprive any citizen of the right to vote who was entitled to vote when Congress enacted the VRA. Virginia’s 1869 Constitution, which was in effect in 1870, only disenfranchised those convicted of crimes which were felonies at common law, while the current Constitution, enacted in 1971, disenfranchised all persons convicted of any felony, regardless of whether the felony was a crime at common law. The plaintiffs in King sought an injunction against enforcement of the current constitution provisions against individuals convicted of crimes that were not felonies at common law in 1870.
The EDVA Shows Its Reluctance to Transfer Cases Brought by Virginia Plaintiffs
A long line of cases in the EDVA demonstrates that defendants seeking to transfer venue out of the EDVA under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) face an uphill climb if the plaintiff is a Virginia resident.
Summary Judgment Ruling in Complex Contract Dispute Addresses Issues from A (Admiralty) to W (Warranty) and Many in Between
In a case involving a fact pattern that could be on a law school exam, EDVA Judge Mark Davis provides a detailed analysis of a series of issues in a complex dispute between a yacht owner and a marine engine manufacturer. What Hurts, LLC v. Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:22cv552, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3063 (E.D.Va. Jan. 4, 2024)
EDVA Rules That a Demand Letter to Amazon Creates Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction
One issue a patent owner faces when attempting to enforce its patent is the notice given to a potential infringer. By sending a demand letter to a potential infringer, a patentee runs the risk of creating a basis for a declaratory judgment action for noninfringement. If the demand letter accuses the recipient of infringement, for example, the accused infringer can file a declaratory judgment action in a federal district court of its choosing, thus depriving the patentee of the ability to choose where suit is filed.
EDVA Judge Dismisses Saudi Arabian Contract Dispute Based on Forum Non Conveniens
It is not uncommon for plaintiffs based in the United States to bring claims against foreign parties in U.S. federal courts to obtain a favorable venue and avoid any bias in foreign courts in favor of local defendants. A recent decision by Judge Brinkema in the EDVA involving a contract dispute between a U.S. company and a Saudi Arabian shipyard and the Saudi Ports Authority, however, demonstrates the limits of that strategy.