2011 Unpublished Opinions News Summary

Tue, 19 Mar 2019 15:17:00 GMT

The Court holds that because the Superior Court's factual findings and conclusions of law show the basis for its finding of contract liability, and the evidence sufficiently supports its finding, the Superior Court did not err in finding Maria Turnbull liable to Sheldon Turnbull based on an oral agreement between the two parties. The Court also held that the Superior Court erred when it held that Sheldon could recover expenses associated with work performed after Maria terminated her agreement with Sheldon on May 27, 2007. Last, the Court held that the Superior Court's factual findings and conclusions of law are insufficient to review the court's damages award because it is unclear whether Sheldon Turnbull was awarded damages for expenses that accrued after May 27, 2007.

Tue, 19 Mar 2019 15:16:00 GMT

The Supreme Court holds that misconduct in a judgeship may affect a bar applicant's fitness to practice law or provide evidence of lack of good moral character. However, to reflect adversely on an applicant's fitness to practice law or moral character, the misconduct that occurred as a judge should be of the nature that would constitute misconduct or be evidence of poor moral conduct if committed only by an attorney. Thus, the Supreme Court agrees that a public reprimand imposed for violating portions of the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct that do not overlap with the Rules of Professional Conduct that govern attorneys is not, without more, evidence of moral turpitude. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court declines to adopt the Committee of Bar Examiners' ultimate recommendation that the applicant has satisfied the character and fitness requirement because the Committee failed to conduct a complete and full inquiry into the applicant's moral character. Specifically, while the Committee was aware that an unauthorized practice of law complaint had been filed against the applicant, it erred by failing to inquire into or investigate the allegation at the applicant's due process hearing. Therefore, the Supreme Court remands the matter to the Committee so that it may conduct a full and complete character and fitness investigation that includes an inquiry into the unauthorized practice of law complaint.

Tue, 19 Mar 2019 15:15:00 GMT

The Court holds that, although the Superior Court's decision to sua sponte vacate an order that had been appealed one month after a notice of appeal had been filed may have mooted the appeal, Supreme Court Rule 5(a)(5) prohibited the Superior Court from taking such an action while the appeal was pending. The Court, however, found that the Appellate Division retained jurisdiction over the underlying habeas corpus matter because its prior remand had been a record remand rather than a case remand. Moreover, the Court found that no conflict exists between its prior decision in Hypolite v. People and the Third Circuit's decision in Hodge v. Bluebeard's Castle because Bluebeard's Castle concerned a case remand while Hypolite involved a record remand. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Tue, 19 Mar 2019 15:14:00 GMT

The Court holds that the Government of the Virgin Islands is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing a judge of the Superior Court to issue an order either granting the Government's motion to vest title pursuant to section 421(a) of title 28 of the Virgin Islands Code or explaining why the requirements of section 421(a) have not been met. Because the Government has not merely alleged that the judge has failed to rule on its motion, but has breached a ministerial duty to immediately grant its motion if the requirements of section 421 have been met, compliance with the judge's order that the Government file proof of service by publication is not an adequate alternative to mandamus review. Moreover, the Court holds that the Government has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought because, although section 416(b) of title 28 requires that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1 apply to condemnation proceedings, the plain text of the "quick take" provision in section 421(a) provides that title vests in the Government immediately "[u]pon the filing of said declaration of taking and deposit in the court," without listing service as a prerequisite to the vesting of title. Finally, the Court holds that mandamus relief is appropriate under the circumstances because issuing a writ of mandamus would effectuate the intent of the Legislature and a decision not to issue a writ could cause the Government to continue to incur daily penalties with its contractor.

Tue, 19 Mar 2019 15:13:00 GMT

The Superior Court did not err in denying a habeas corpus petition by an individual sentenced to 30 years in prison upon conviction for second degree murder. Since 14 V.I.C. § 923(b) expressly imposes a five-year minimum sentence for second degree murder, that provision prescribes a "different punishment" than the general felony statute codified in § 9(a)(1). Petitioner's 30-year sentence for murder is not greater than the maximum authorized by law, and does not unlawfully imprison him or unlawfully deprive him of liberty. The judgment of the Superior Court denying the writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.

Tue, 19 Mar 2019 15:12:00 GMT

The Supreme Court holds that, because section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt local Virgin Islands law, it lacks jurisdiction over an appeal of an order denying a motion for stay pending arbitration.

Tue, 19 Mar 2019 15:11:00 GMT

The Supreme Court holds that, although the Superior Court possesses jurisdiction to set a supersedeas bond requirement, it lacks jurisdiction to order the release of that bond while the appeal remains pending in the Supreme Court.