Byelick v. Vivadelli

2 Citing cases

  1. Storey v. Patient First Corp.

    207 F. Supp. 2d 431 (E.D. Va. 2002)   Cited 42 times
    Denying motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim of tortious interference and finding plaintiff properly alleged the existence of three actors where plaintiff alleged that the individual defendants were acting for their own reasons and outside of the scope of their employment

    In their respective briefs in support of, and in opposition to, the defendants' motion to dismiss, the parties discussed the somewhat conflicting decisional law that has emerged out of this district on the issue whether, in Virginia, an individual shareholder of a corporation may sue an officer or director of that corporation for breach of fiduciary duty. Compare American General Ins. Co. v. Equitable General Corp., 493 F. Supp. 721 (E.D.Va. 1980), with Byelick v. Vivadelli, 79 F. Supp.2d 610 (E.D.Va. 1999). It is unnecessary to examine Storey's breach of fiduciary duties claim in perspective of the American General Ins. Co. and Byelick decisions, however, because, since they were decided, the Supreme Court of Virginia authoritatively has decided the precise issue that the parties dispute.

  2. Craddock v. LeClair Ryan, P.C.

    Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-11 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2016)   Cited 3 times
    In Craddock, the Eastern District of Virginia rejected the plaintiff's argument that she was not bound to an arbitration provision because she did not sign it.

    When confronted with uncertain state law, a federal court must predict what course the highest court in the state would take. Byelick v. Vivadelli, 79 F. Supp. 2d 610, 623 (E.D. Va. 1999). The federal court may base its prediction on "canons of construction, restatements of the law, treatises, recent pronouncements of general rules or policies by the state's highest court, well considered dicta, and the state's trial court decisions."