Supreme Court of the United States Virgin Islands
Supreme Court of the United States Virgin Islands

 
Know Your Court
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Justices
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Office of the Clerk
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Administrative Services
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Professional Regulation
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Court Rules
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Promulgation Orders
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Opinions
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Supreme Court of the Virgin IslandsPublished Opinions
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Supreme Court of the Virgin IslandsUnpublished Opinions
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Electronic Docket
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Electronic Filing
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Media Services
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Supreme Court News
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Fee Schedule
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
FAQ
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Forms Download
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Reference Links
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Site Map
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
ADA
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Login to E-Filing
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Search Court Opinions
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
View Oral Arguement Videos
Opinions > Unpublished Opinions
2017 Unpublished Opinions   2016 Unpublished Opinions   2015 Unpublished Opinions   2014 Unpublished Opinions   2013 Unpublished Opinions   2012 Unpublished Opinions   2011 Unpublished Opinions   2010 Unpublished Opinions   2009 Unpublished Opinions   2008 Unpublished Opinions   2007 Unpublished Opinions   
2011 Unpublished Opinions
You can search opinions by title, case number or any text contained within the opinion

 


September 19, 2011
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2011-0067
George R. Simpson vs. Myrna Golden
      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.
      Download Per Curiam Order  (65 kb)

August 25, 2011
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2011-0051
World Fresh Market d/b/a Pueblo v. P.D.C.M. Associates, S.E.
      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.
      Download Opinion  (21 kb)

July 19, 2011
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2008-0059
Ferdinand v. Bureau of Corrections
      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.
      Download Opinion  (18 kb)

May 18, 2011
S.Ct.Civ. No.: 2011-0029
In Re: Government Of The Virgin Islands,
      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.
      Download Opinion  (33 kb)

March 22, 2011
S.Ct.Civ. No. 2011-0014
Johnny Martinez v. Iver A. Stridiron and Government of the Virgin Islands
      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.
      Download Per Curiam Order  (119 kb)

March 3, 2011
S.Ct.BA.No.: 2009-0230
In Re: The matter of the application of Wilson J. Campbell, Esquire, for special admission to the Virgin Islands Bar.
      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.
      Download Opinion  (41 kb)

March 1, 2011
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2009-0092
Maria Turnbull (Appellant/Defendant,) vs. Sheldon Turnbull (Appellee/Plaintiff)
      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.
      Download Opinion  (38 kb)
Return to Top
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Know Your Court Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Justices Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Office of the Clerk Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Administrative Services Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Professional Regulation Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Court Rules Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Promulgation Orders Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Opinions Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Electronic Docket Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Electronic Filing Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Media Services Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Supreme Court News Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Fee Schedule Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands FAQ Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Forms Download Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Reference Links Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Site Map Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands ADA
 Website Tools News from Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands  Website Policy News from Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Sign Me Up Sign up for email from Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Website created by Web Solutions Omaha
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
 
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands