Legal Opinion
Boland v. Rivanna Partners
Charlottesville County Circuit Court
Decided November 21, 2005No. Case No. (Law) 05-32PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
By Judge Edward L. Hogshire
Defendants Michael Johnson and Johnson’s Backhoe Service, Inc. (collectively, “the Johnsons”) have demurred to Plaintiff Peggy M. Boland’s Amended Motion for Judgment (“AMJ”), arguing that they cannot be held liable for her injuries as a matter of law. Plaintiff and Defendant Rivanna Partners, L.L.C. (“Rivanna”) oppose the demurrer. The parties have filed memoranda in support of their respective positions and the matter has been argued by counsel. For the reasons stated below, this Court overrules the demurrer.
Statement of Facts
As this is a demurrer, the Court…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Glanzer v. . ShepardNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Gazo v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- W. S. Carnes, Inc. v. Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1996
- Adkins v. DixonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1997
- Sanchez v. Medicorp Health SystemSupreme Court of Virginia · 2005
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Carl Tuel v. Hertz Equipment Rental CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2013
- Early v. HP/Stanardsville, Inc.Greene County Circuit Court · 2010
- Holderfield v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2022
- Orange v. Berkshire Property Advisors, L.L.C.Fairfax County Circuit Court · 2011
- Rodriguez v. Northern Virginia Electric CooperativeLoudoun County Circuit Court · 2009