Mid-Atlantic Business Comm. v. Virginia DMV

5 Citing cases

  1. Viking Enterprise v. Cty. of Chesterfield

    277 Va. 104 (Va. 2009)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Since Viking's claim arose out of a construction contract subject to the Procurement Act, it then had to file its complaint in the circuit court within six months of the date of the final decision of the public body in accordance with Code §§ 2.2-4363(E) and -4364(E). Viking, nevertheless, points to our decisions in Flory Small Business Development Center v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 230, 541 S.E.2d 915 (2001), Mid-Atlantic Business Communications, Inc. v. Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, 269 Va. 51, 606 S.E.2d 835 (2005), and Blake Construction Co. v. Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority, 266 Va. 564, 587 S.E.2d 711 (2003), for the proposition that the provisions of the Procurement Act are controlling and the notice and bond requirements set forth in Code § 15.2-1246 can, therefore, be disregarded. We do not agree. These cases are not dispositive of the issue before us in this appeal.

  2. Biscayne Contractors, Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfax Cnty.

    CL 2018-14893 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 28, 2019)

    The Board asserts that Mid-Atl. Bus. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Virginia Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 269 Va. 51 (2005) supports its position. But, unlike the instant case, where the Purchasing Resolution expressly incorporated "instituting legal action as provided in the Code of Virginia" and compliance with "all statutory requirements" and the Purchasing Agent is not a "public body," the Vendors Manual at issue in Mid-Atl.

  3. Grooms v. Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Admin. Med. Ctr.

    Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00849-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 11, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    The plaintiff bears the burden to establish entitlement to the protection of the tolling provision. Mid-Atlantic Bus. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Va. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 269 Va. 51, 58, 606 S.E.2d 835, 839 (2005).

  4. Apac-Atlantic, Inc. v. General Ins. Co.

    643 S.E.2d 483 (Va. 2007)

    The parties do not dispute that the underlying contracts for which the payment bonds were issued fall under the VPPA, Code §§ 2.2-4300 et seq. "The VPPA is a specific statute relating to the acquisition of goods and services by public bodies [and] the provisions of that Act . . . apply to disputes arising from goods or services provided under the VPPA." Mid-Atlantic Business Communications, Inc. v. Virginia Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 269 Va. 51, 56, 606 S.E.2d 835, 838 (2005). Code § 2.2-4341(C) of the VPPA states: "Any action on a payment bond shall be brought within one year after the day on which the person bringing such action last performed labor or last furnished or supplied materials."

  5. Newman v. Walker

    270 Va. 291 (Va. 2005)   Cited 27 times
    Holding motorist misrepresenting his name at an accident scene obstructed the plaintiff's filing and tolled the statute

    We concluded that the plaintiff had not established "such trick or artifice or purpose" by the doctor. Id.; accord Horn v. Abernathy, 231 Va. 228, 234, 343 S.E.2d 318, 321 (1986); Morriss v. White, 146 Va. 553, 570-71, 131 S.E. 835, 840 (1926); see also Mid-Atlantic Bus. Communications, Inc. v. Virginia Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 269 Va. 51, 58, 606 S.E.2d 835, 839 (2005) (defendant's continuing to consider plaintiff's claim and failing to respond to certain letters was not "an affirmative act . . . designed to thwart" the plaintiff's ability to file a lawsuit within the six-month limitations period). When we decided Hawks, the relevant tolling provision was set forth in Code § 8-33 (1957), a predecessor to Code § 8.01-229(D).