Skip to main content

Halifax Corp. v. First Union National Bank

Va.June 8, 2001No. Record 001944Cited 88 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Carrico, Hassell, Keenan, Kinser, Lemons, Poff, Stephenson
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The circuit court granted First Union's motion for summary judgment, finding that Halifax's claims were barred under Virginia Code § 8.4-406(f) because Halifax failed to discover and report unauthorized signatures within one year of the bank making statements available to it.

What This Ruling Means

I apologize, but I cannot provide a meaningful summary of this court ruling because the information provided is insufficient. The case excerpt is completely empty, and crucial details are missing, including: - What the actual dispute was about - What the court decided (the outcome is listed as "unknown") - The specific employment law issues involved - Which party was the employer and which was the employee Without these essential details, it would be irresponsible for me to speculate about what happened in Halifax Corp. v. First Union National Bank or what it might mean for workers. To properly explain how this case affects workers' rights, I would need: - A description of the employment dispute - The court's actual ruling and reasoning - The specific employment laws that were applied If you can provide the actual court decision or a more complete case summary, I'd be happy to explain it in plain English and discuss its implications for workers. Court rulings can significantly impact employee rights, so it's important to base any explanation on accurate, complete information rather than incomplete records.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.
3rd CircuitSep 2008
Defendant Win
Campbell
Va.Dec 2025

The language of the Virginia wage theft statute, Code § 40.1-29, specifically lists wages and salaries, but it does not expressly apply to commissions, and its context does not support an interpretation that extends the statute's protections to commissions. Resting its contrary conclusion on the remedial purpose of the statute, past decisions interpreting the term "wages" in other contexts, and an interpretation by an administrative agency contained in a field manual, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the circuit court concluding that Code § 40.1-29 did not apply to commissions. However, neither the plain meaning of the terms "wages" or "commissions," nor the use of the term wages in the context of Code § 40.1-29, suggests that the use of that term sweeps in the concept of "commissions," and contentions to the contrary, while compelling, are properly addressed to the legislature. Therefore, the most plausible reading of Code § 40.1-29 is that the General Assembly did not intend for the wage theft statute to apply to commissions. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Defendant Win
Ingleside
Va.Dec 2025

In an interlocutory appeal brought by medical staffing companies concerning a physician-plaintiff's claim against them under the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act, Code § 40.1-27.3, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of their plea in bar to that claim because the alleged retaliatory action taken against the plaintiff -- removing her from the work schedule in March of 2021 -- took place more than one year prior to her filing suit on April 1, 2022. The fact that she only later discovered her injury to be greater than she first realized as a result of a June 2, 2021, termination letter confirming that the termination of her employment was effective as of March 3, 2021, is immaterial to when she first sustained that injury. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Remanded
Vlaming v. West Point School Board
Va.Dec 2023
Remanded

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.