Supreme Court of the United States Virgin Islands


Court Calendars	\|	Employment Opportunities	\|	Contact Us	\|	Site Policy	\|	Search Site:

Home

Know Your Court

Justices

Office of the Clerk

Administrative Services

Supreme Court Electronic Docket


Printer-friendly

Opinions > Published Opinions

2010 Published Opinions

2010 Published Opinions 2009 Published Opinions 2008 Published Opinions 2007 Published Opinions


July 30, 2010

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2009-0023
Beachside Associates, LLC, (Appellant/Plaintiff) v Yehuda Fishman, et al.,(Appellees/Defendants.)

	The Court holds that, because the issue of whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires the court to consider if a discretionary extension of time is appropriate despite the lack of good cause is an important issue of first impression that is separate from the merits of the underlying dispute, it possesses jurisdiction to resolve the issue pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. The Court further holds that while the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in its good cause analysis, it did misapply FRCP 4(m) when it failed to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to a discretionary extension of time for service of process notwithstanding the lack of good cause. Accordingly, the Court vacates the Superior Court’s dismissal order and remands the matter to the Superior Court so that it may consider whether the statute of limitations and any other appropriate factors warrant the granting of a discretionary extension of time.

	Download Opinion (67 kb)


July 30, 2010

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2008-0071
Horaciana J. Rojas, et al., (Appellants/Plaintiffs), v Two/Morrow Ideas Enterprises,et al., (Appellees/Defendants.)

	The Court holds that, when the Superior Court is asked to review the reasonableness of a settlement agreement on behalf of a minor plaintiff, it also possesses jurisdiction to review a contingent fee agreement between the adult plaintiffs and their attorney. However, because such agreements must be reviewed in light of the best interests of the minor, the Superior Court’s decision to reduce an attorney’s contingent fee without applying the appropriate three-factor test requires that the decision be vacated. Moreover, although the Superior Court possesses jurisdiction to review the reasonableness of a contingent fee agreement independently of a petition to approve a minor’s settlement, it cannot reduce a contingency fee as unreasonable unless it considers the eight factors provided for in Rule 1.5 of the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, made applicable to Virgin Islands courts pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 203. Finally, because the record contained no evidence that the contingent fee in this case was unconscionable, the Court also reverses the Superior Court’s finding that the contingency fee must be reduced because it is unconscionable.

	Download Opinion (53 kb)


July 29, 2010

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2008-0065
Laverne P. White, (Appellant/Plaintiff) v Spenceley Realty, LLC, (Appellee/Defendant.)

	The Supreme Court, after explaining the relationship between sections 355, 357, 360, and 361 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, holds that section 357—and not sections 360 and 361—is applicable when a lessor leases an entire building to a lessee. The Court further holds that, at the summary judgment stage, a court cannot use extrinsic evidence to disregard the plain text of a contract unless the extrinsic evidence is undisputed. Finally, the Court holds that, because section 357 subjects a lessor to liability only if the lessor does not exercise reasonable care after receiving notice of the need for repairs, summary judgment was warranted in this case due to the absence of any admissible evidence that, if viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, would have allowed a trier of fact to find that the lessor knew that the lessee intended for it to make repairs.

	Download Opinion (60 kb)


July 7, 2010

S.Ct. Crim. No. 2007-0105
Daryl Blyden (Appellant/Defendant), v People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff)

	The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s September 25, 2007 Judgment as to all counts, except that, consistent with its prior decisions, the Court reversed Appellant’s conviction for unauthorized possession of ammunition. Specifically, the Court held that Appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the admission of the physical evidence at trial, because the firearm was obtained pursuant to a valid Terry stop and the additional seized items were obtained pursuant to a search incident to a lawful arrest. Additionally, the Court held that the admission at trial of the police officer’s suppression hearing testimony did not violate the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, because, though technically a direct examination, Appellant partook of cross-examination as a matter of form and his examination of the officer was not hindered by the trial court. Moreover, the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the firearm into evidence, because the local rules of evidence in affect at the time of Appellant’s trial did not require specific authentication of non-writings and because both parties made full use of the procedure suggested in 5 V.I.C. § 778. Finally, the Court held that there was no Fifth Amendment violation in the admission of Appellant’s inculpatory statements, because both statements were voluntarily and spontaneously made after Appellant was advised of his rights.

	Download Opinion (88 kb)


June 24, 2010

S.Ct. Civ. No.: 2008-0012
Delma Madir, (Appellant/Defendant ) vs.Matthias Daniel, For Himself And Minor, Kimani Kiron Daniel, (Appellee/Plaintiff.)

	The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent physical custody of the minor child to his father where the record showed that the court based its decision on numerous factors related to the best interests of the child.

	Download Opinion (52 kb)


June 23, 2010

S.Ct.Civ. No.: 2009-030
Cape Air IInternational, (Appellant/Defendant,) vs. Tommy Lindsey and Denise Lindsey, (Appellees/Plaintiffs.)

	The Small Claims Division of the Superior Court erred in granting judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the value of jewelry taken from their baggage after flying on one of the defendant’s planes. Although the defendant did not establish that the liability limitation in the contract of carriage governed the claim, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that the defendant’s negligence caused the loss, and the Superior Court should have, therefore, granted judgment to the defendant.

	Download Opinion (115 kb)


June 18, 2010

S.CT.Civ. No.: 2009-0108
Harriet Mercer (Appellant/Petitioner) vs. Albert Bryan, Jr., Commissioner of the V.L Department of Labor, etal. (Appellees/Respondents)

	The Court affirms the Superior Court’s dismissal of an untimely petition for writ of review for lack of jurisdiction because, pursuant to the Court’s prior holdings in Pichardo v. Comm’r and Worldwide Flight Services v. Gov’t, the statutory deadlines for filing a petition for writ of review are jurisdictional and may not be equitably modified by courts. The Court further (1) holds that the Superior Court may consider an untimely motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) rejects the contention that the decision in Worldwide Flight Services cannot apply to cases where the petition for writ of review was filed before that decision was issued; and (3) re-affirms its previous holdings that the general writ of review statute, codified as 5 V.I.C. §§ 1421-23, and Superior Court Rule 15(a) are inapplicable when a statute authorizes a petition for writ of review in a specific case.

	Download Opinion (37 kb)


June 25, 2009

S.Ct.Civ. No.: 2007-060
Eleanor Chavayez, (Appellant/Plaintiff ) vs. Sydney Buhler and James S. Armour (Appellees/Defendants)

	Appellant Eleanor Chavayez (hereafter “Chavayez”) appeals a March 28, 2007 Superior Court order denying her motion for relief from a June 17, 2002 judgment dismissing Chavayez’s complaint against Appellees Sydney Buhler and James S. Armour (collectively “Appellees”). For the following reasons, we shall reverse the trial court’s March 28, 2007 order and vacate its judgment.

	Download Opinion (114 kb)


January 14, 2010

S.Ct.Civ. No.: 2008-082
Marie Augustine Harris, (Appellant/Plaintiff,) v. Rafael Garcia, M.D., Maxwell Martin d/b/a D & D Apothecary Hall Pharmacy, Ernest Roper, John Doe, (Appellees/Defendants.)

	The Supreme Court holds that the Superior Court erred in denying a "motion for reconsideration" of an order dismissing a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Superior Court Rule 50, and not Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3, governs motions to set aside a final judgment. The Court further holds that thirty-seven days is not an unreasonable amount of time for a litigant to seek relief from a final judgment under Superior Court Rule 50, and that the Superior Court's denial of the motion as untimely was not harmless because the Superior Court could not have denied the motion on other grounds without also abusing its discretion.

	Download Opinion (35 kb)


January 27, 2010

S.Ct.Crim.No. 2008-072
Daniel Carlo Castillo (Appellant/Defendant) vs. People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff)

	The Court denies a motion to withdraw as counsel in a criminal appeal as of right because counsel's Anders brief, while indicating that counsel believed Appellant's appeal lacked merit, did not establish that Appellant's appeal was wholly frivolous. Specifically, the Court holds that while an argument may lack merit when it is against the weight of legal authority, it is not a frivolous argument unless it is against the overwhelming weigh of legal authority and also entirely without any basis in law or fact or without any logic supporting a change of law.

	Download Opinion (29 kb)


February 11, 2010

S.Ct. Crim. No.: 2010-017
Lemuel Phillips (Appellant/Defendant) vs. People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff)

	Appellant, Lemuel Phillips, was involved in a long-standing dispute with his neighbor, Julian Industrious. The dispute escalated into a confrontation in which Phillips pointed a gun at Industrious and Industrious’s landscaper and threatened to shoot the two men. After the confrontation, the People of the Virgin Islands charged Phillips with, among other crimes, two counts of third degree assault. Following a bench trial on the charges, the Superior Court found Phillips guilty. Phillips filed the instant appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. For the reasons which follow, the Superior Court’s judgment of conviction is affirmed.

	Download Opinion (40 kb)


June 4, 2010

S.CT.Civ. No. 2008-031
Norma Pickard-Samuel, et al. (Appellants/Plaintiffs,) v. Government of the Virgin Islands and Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority, (Appellees/Defendants.)

	The Court holds that, because the appellee had failed, through its motion for summary judgment, to meet its initial burden of identifying evidence that demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the Superior Court erred in granting summary judgment to the appellee based on the record before it.

	Download Opinion (34 kb)


April 14, 2010

S.CT.Crim. No. 2009-028
People of the Virgin Islands (Appellant/Plaintiff,) vs. Jose Alberto Rodriguez, (Appellee/Defendant.)

	The Superior Court abused its discretion in excluding the Government's DNA evidence based on the Government's violation of a discovery order, because the court did not consider whether a less severe sanction than exclusion was feasible to achieve the desired results.

	Download Opinion (201 kb)


June 8, 2010

S.Ct. Crim. No. 2008-0045
Aurelio Rivera, III, (Appellant/Defendant) vs. People of the Virgin Islands, (Appellee/Plaintiff.)

	Appellant, Aurelio Rivera, III (“Rivera”), appeals from the Superior Court’s June 2, 2008 Order of Judgment and Commitment, which sentenced him to twenty years of incarceration. For the reasons which follow, we will affirm Rivera’s conviction.

	Download Opinion (26 kb)


May 6, 2010

S.Ct. Civ. No. 2008-0085
Mill Harbour Condominium Owner’s Association, (Appellant/Defendant,) v. Denese Marshall, MD, (Appellee/Plaintiff. )

	The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's September 25, 2008 Judgment, which had awarded monetary damages to Appellee for damage sustained to her vehicle while located in a parking lot on Appellant's property. Specifically, the Court held that the trial court erred in concluding that Appellee had established the requisite duty and causation elements for a negligence action.

	Download Opinion (39 kb)


May 4, 2010

S.Ct. Crim No. 2008-0008
Roi V. Simmonds (Appellant/Defendant) v. People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff). S. Ct. Crim. No. 2008-0008

	Following a warrantless search of Roi Simmonds’ back yard, enforcement officers from the Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority (“WMA”) issued him a citation for accumulating waste on his property. Simmonds moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search, arguing that the officers violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Superior Court denied Simmonds’ motion to suppress, and after a bench trial, found him guilty of the charge. Simmonds filed this appeal, asserting that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Because we agree with Simmonds that the Fourth Amendment prohibited the officers’ warrantless search of his back yard, we will reverse his conviction.

	Download Opinion (116 kb)


April 21, 2010

S.Ct. Crim. No.: 2009-0064
Roland Murrell, (Appellant/Defendant) vs. People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff.)

	The Court, based on concerns about judicial economy, the role of defense counsel, and the fact that a criminal defendant is entitled to a direct appeal of his convictions as of right, holds that it shall no longer accept motions to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California and shall instead require all court-appointed attorneys to submit a merits brief regardless of any personal belief that the appeal they have been appointed to prosecute may lack merit or be frivolous..

	Download Opinion (54 kb)


April 19, 2010

S.CT.Crim. No.: 2009-0111
Jalani Williams, (Appellant/Defendant,) vs. People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff)

	The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's November 25, 2009 pre-trial detention order and remanded to the Superior Court with instructions to conduct a new pre-trial detention hearing, in accordance with its holdings therein, to determine whether Appellant should be detained pending trial. Specifically, the Court held that the provisions of 5 V.I.C. § 3504a(b) not abrogated by its prior decisions concerning pre-trial detention continue to govern the conduct of pre-trial detention hearings in local Virgin Islands courts. Additionally, the Court held that, because the trial court in this case did not ascertain the reliability of the hearsay statements underlying the People's exclusively hearsay evidence, the trial court erred in concluding that the evidence was clear and convincing that Appellant committed first degree murder.

	Download Opinion (65 kb)


April 12, 2010

S.CT.Civ. No. 2010-053
Ernest Halliday, Sr., et al (Appellants/Plaintiffs,) vs. Footlocker Specialty, Inc., et al (Appellees/Defendants)

	The Supreme Court holds that, because dismissal for failure to prosecute constitutes an extreme sanction, the Superior Court may not order it unless it has expressly considered and weighed the extent of the plaintiff's personal responsibility, the prejudice—if any—to the other parties in the litigation, whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a history of dilatoriness, whether the plaintiff or attorney's conduct was willful or in bad faith, the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, and the meritoriousness of the plaintiff's claim.

	Download Opinion (37 kb)


April 7, 2010

S.CT.Civ. No. 2009-031
Diana Y. Davis (Appellant/Defendant,) vs. Allied Mortgage Capital Corporation, (Appellee/Plaintiff)

	The Court holds that it lacks jurisdiction to review a Superior Court order adjudicating a plaintiff's claim against a defendant, but not disposing of the defendant's counterclaim, because it is not a final appealable order. The Court further holds that while such an order may nevertheless be final if a) the order implicitly denies the counterclaim; b) judgment in favor of the plaintiff's claim renders the counterclaim moot; or c) the counterclaim was never properly before the Superior Court, none of those exceptions are present in the instant case. Significantly, the Court found that the defendant's counterclaim was properly before the Superior Court even though it was filed during the automatic stay mandated by 5 V.I.C. § 547 because documents filed during such a stay are voidable rather than void.

	Download Opinion (50 kb)


March 9, 2010

S.CT.Crim. No.: 2008-040
Akeem Corraspe, (Appellant/Defendant,) v. People of the Virgin Islands, (Appellee/Plaintiff.)

	Because Superior Court Rule 126 does not prohibit a court from participating in plea discussions, the court did not err by commenting on a proposed plea, and the defendant's attorneys did not render ineffective assistance by failing to object to the judge's comments.

	Download Opinion (63 kb)


February 19, 2010

S.CT.Crim.No.: 2009-052
People of the Virgin Islands (Appellant/Plaintiff,) vs. Willis Todmann (Appellee/Defendant)

	The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's April 28, 2009 interlocutory order, which granted Appellee's motion to exclude the proposed testimony of the People's handwriting expert. Specifically, a majority of the Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the two pieces of testimony, despite the fact that the trial court erroneously applied the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE") rather than the statutorily-enacted Uniform Rules of Evidence ("URE"). Notably, the Court held that FRE 702's assist the trier of fact requirement, which is not embodied in 5 V.I.C. § 911(2)'s expert witness rule, is equivalent to 5 V.I.C. § 777(f)'s general relevancy requirement.

	Download Opinion (104 kb)


February 19, 2010

S.CT.Misc. No. 2009-025
IN RE: The Honorable Leon A. Kendall.

	The Supreme Court holds that Supreme Court Internal Operating Procedure 10.2.1, which incorporates the provisions of title 4, section 284 of the Virgin Islands Code, governs judicial recusal of Supreme Court Justices. The Court further holds that neither Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42 nor Superior Court Rule 139 bind the Supreme Court because no procedural mechanism exists to apply federal or Superior Court procedural rules to Supreme Court proceedings. However, the Court determines that, because Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42's judicial disqualification procedure represents the minimum constitutional requirements necessary to safeguard a criminal contempt defendant's due process rights under the United States Constitution, it may nevertheless serve as a basis for judicial recusal in indirect criminal contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court. Finally, the Court finds that recusal is not required in this matter because the United States Supreme Court has held that a defendant's alleged disobedience of a court order, without more, does not compel that the judge who issued the order recuse himself from presiding over the defendant's indirect contempt proceeding.

	Download Opinion (39 kb)


January 26, 2010

S.Ct. Crim. No. 2008-042
Arnold Malone (Appellant/Defendant) vs. People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff)

	Appellant had shown no plausible basis for two witnesses to be returned to court to be examined on their out of court recantation statements. The two witnesses had identified Appellant as the assailant in written statements to the police on the day of the incident, but one witness subsequently recanted his initial identification of Appellant; both witnesses subsequently testified against Appellant in his trial and identified him as the assailant. Both witnesses knew Appellant prior to the shooting incident. After testifying both witnesses recanted their initial identifications of Appellant during a hiatus in the trial, even though they had both identified Appellant as the assailant in their trial testimonies. During the trial, the two letters of earlier recantations by one of the two witnesses were admitted in evidence. Therefore, the two witnesses' latest recantations are insufficient to compel the witnesses to reappear in court to be examined on their latest recantations. Appellant was therefore not entitled to compulsory process because a criminal defendant does not have a Constitutional right to have cumulative evidence admitted at trial.

	Download Opinion (76 kb)


January 15, 2010

S.CT.Civ.No. 2008-061
Sheara Bryant (Appellant/Defendant) vs. People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff)

	Because the Superior Court's temporary custody order did not finally adjudicate the issue of neglect and was not a type of interlocutory order which could be immediately appealed, the appeal from that order was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

	Download Opinion (45 kb)


January 13, 2010

S.Ct.Crim. No. 2008-064
Bandele K. Richards, (Appellant/Defendant) vs. People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff)

	The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's August 4, 2008 Order of Judgment and Commitment, holding that the trial court's admission of the out-of-court and in-court identifications of Appellant was not erroneous. In particular, the Court concluded that, although the pretrial identification procedure employed by the police was unnecessarily suggestive, the pretrial identification itself was nevertheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Additionally, the Court held that, because the admission of the pretrial identification was proper, the trial court did not err in admitting the in-court identification.

	Download Opinion (56 kb)