CHARLOTTE CO. – The suit attempting to get a Special Grand Jury to investigate the Charlotte County Voter Registrar was dismissed with Prejudice by Judge Kimberly White. This means with the exception of an appeal the issue cannot be brought to court again.
The suit named the Voter Registrar of Charlotte County, the Board of Supervisors of Charlotte County and the Virginia Department of Elections as defendants. The matter came before the Court on February 9, 2022.
“Five Citizens filed a complaint alleging various wrongdoing on the part of the County Defendants and the Virginia Board of Elections. The Citizens aver that their alleged facts give rise to a public or common nuisance that “destroys the public’s confidence in the electoral process and the county executive.” Compl. 1 15. Under Va. Code § 48-1, the Citizens petition this Court to empanel a special grand jury to investigate the Defendants’ alleged public or common nuisance.”
“When complaint is made to the circuit court of any county, or the corporation court of any city of this Commonwealth, by five or more citizens of any county, city or town, setting forth the existence of a public or common nuisance, the court, or the judge thereof in vacation, shall summon a special grand jury, in the mode provided by law, to the next of such court, to specially investigate such complaint.”
The defendants responded with demurrers objecting to the suit and documenting the reasons.
According to the court order “the Citizens have met the first two conditions, they have failed to allege facts satisfying the third condition, “setting forth the existence of a public or common nuisance.”
Typically, public nuisances result from misuse of one’s property that affects the surrounding community. Traditional examples of public nuisances include places of criminal activity (such as drug trafficking operations or brothels), or obstruction of public rights of way, The allegations here do not relate to such misuse of property and therefore do not constitute public or common nuisance under traditional nuisance law.
Moreover, the Court does not agree with the Citizens that it should adopt a “novel” approach to nuisance law. Although the Court is aware of recent attempts to expand the scope of nuisance law in other jurisdictions, the Court is not aware of any Virginia court adopting such broad definition of a public or common nuisance. The Court accordingly declines the Citizens’ invitation to create new law in this area.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will SUSTAIN the Demurrers of the County Defendants. Because no facts arising from the alleged wrongdoing on the part of local and state officials would give rise to a public or common nuisance the Court DISMISSES with prejudice the Complaint. The Clerk is directed to place this action among the ended matters, and to furnish a certified copy of this Order to counsel of record for each party to this action.
View Photo Galleries of events we have covered at Shutterfly
Log in- Posts - Add New - Designed, Hosted, & Managed by Digital Newspaper Solutions, LLC
Recent Comments