Rss Feed
Payday loans

‘Legal Updates’ Category

  1. Arkansas traffic stop leads to drug charges in Norfolk

    August 16, 2012 by Christy

    During a traffic stop, Arkansas State Police brought in a drug-sniffing dog, which gave a “positive alert” for the odor of drugs in a Norfolk man”s vehicle, according to a search warrant affidavit. In addition to a small amount of marijuana inside the motor home, troopers found a total of $179,800 in cash under a bed and in a closet, the affidavit said. The men in the vehicle denied ownership of the money and were sent on their way. Arkansas State Police kept the cash.

    The Norfolk resident returned to Norfolk after the traffic stop. But an agent with Homeland Security Investigations, a division of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement whose cases include drug smuggling, notified Norfolk police narcotics detectives about the incident in Arkansas.

    A federal agent and Norfolk officers on several occasions in April, May and July took the Norfolk resident”s garbage after he left it at the curb of his residence, according to the search warrant.

    In court records, police refer to such operations as “a trash pull,” and they sifted through contents of the knotted white trash bags. According to the search warrant, they found marijuana and a rental car receipt from California. Police then used an informant to record a conversation in reference to the Norfolk resident selling narcotics.

    The Norfolk resident was charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana and related charges and is awaiting a court hearing. Andy Protogyrou, his attorney, said he plans to file motions to suppress evidence.

    Read the full article

    All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.


  2. Lawsuit claims Sentara banned care after complaint.

    April 4, 2012 by Christy

    A Williamsburg woman claims in a lawsuit that Sentara Medical Group barred her from most outpatient treatment after she filed a complaint to the state alleging

    the medical group would not see her at any ambulatory practice, although she would receive treatment in the emergency room after her complaint against Dr. John Hamrick.

    The move to bar a patient from nonemergency treatment could violate a state law that forbids hospitals from retaliating against people who cooperate with government agencies protecting patient rights, the complaint says.

    Several veteran malpractice lawyers said last week that restricting treatment is unusual in a whistle-blower case.

    Read the full article here.

    All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.


  3. Gang member gets 35 years in beating death

    March 19, 2012 by Christy

    The presiding judge wondered what would drive a promising young man from a good neighborhood to join a violent street gang and participate in the beating death of an innocent person.

    “I don”t understand why

    term.

    Read the full article here.

    All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.


  4. Traffic Stop for Illegal Window Tint Leads to Search Warrant

    February 28, 2012 by Christy

    Our client was stopped by Virginia Beach Police under the guise of an illegal vehicle window tint violation. The police had no means to test our client’s windows and asked to search our client’s vehicle. Upon his refusal, the Police stated they had a tip that our client distributed cocaine and, they were calling the drug dog.

    The drug dog allegedly alerted to the vehicle but no narcotics were recovered within the vehicle. However, a firearm was recovered in the vehicle. The police then searched the passenger’s purse and discovered a large sum of cocaine. The passenger claimed the cocaine belonged to the driver, our client. Virginia Beach police then obtained a warrant to search our client’s home claiming he was a drug dealer and drug dealers keep materials and records associated with drug distribution in their homes. Within our client’s home the police discovered more cocaine and another firearm.

    Our client was subsequently charged with two counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-248(C) and two counts of Possession of a Firearm while in

    to initiate the traffic stop. We also argued that the discovery of the cocaine and the firearm at the scene of the traffic stop did not create a sufficient nexus between the contraband and the client’s home to support the issuance of the search warrant. Prior to conducting the hearing on our motion to suppress, the Commonwealth Attorney agreed to dismiss three charges if our client pled guilty to one Count of Possession with Intent to Distribute.

    All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.


  5. Defense Verdict-General District Court

    December 13, 2011 by Christy

    On December 13, 2011, via bench briefs, Attorney Andrew A. Protogyrou successfully defended a rear end collision case. At first, liability appeared to be against the Defendant; however, after interviewing witnesses and research, it was determined that weather and road conditions played a significant factor.

    Protogyrou successfully filed a bench brief and argued, based on Supreme Court of Virginia principles, that his client was not negligent because he operated his vehicle within the standard of care required given the hazardous road conditions of snow and ice. Defendant testified he was driving 5 miles per hour and had his lights and windshield wipers on.

    Plaintiff’s counsel argued in his brief that his client was not affected by the inclement weather conditions because the vehicle he was in did not skid. Therefore, our client was at fault.

    In his reply brief, Protogyrou reiterated the objective standard used by the Court and the fact that the principal inquiry in skidding cases was the operator’s actions prior to the accident. Based on this argument, the Court found our client not negligent. Plaintiff’s medical specials totaled over $30,000.00.

    All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.


  6. Dismissal-General District Court

    December 7, 2011 by Christy

    Our firm was retained to defend on a civil matter in which the Plaintiff rear-ended our client. Our client retained personal injury counsel and filed a cross-claim against the Plaintiff. At trial on October 17, 2011, the Court found for the Defendant in her own personal injury case and awarded her damages. However, the judgment entered did not reflect a special finding of negligence against the other driver.

    Our case ultimately went to trial on December 7, 2011. Attorneys Andrew A. Protogyrou and Stricker C. Sanford, IV submitted a brief citing the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which precludes parties to a prior action from litigating in a subsequent action on any factual issue that

    was actually litigated and essential to a valid, final judgment in the prior action.

    As the judgment did not reflect a specific finding of negligence against the opposing party, the Court denied our Motion to Dismiss. At the conclusion of the matter, the Court reopened and reconsidered same, specifically citing a “retraxit.” A judgment in retraxit is usually based upon and follows a settlement out of court. Where the parties to an action have settled their dispute and agreed to a dismissal such dismissal is a retraxit and amounts to a decision upon the merits.

    Our firm successfully argued in a supplemental brief that the Judgment entered on October 17, 2011 was “dismissed agreed,” and second, that because it was “dismissed agreed,” retraxit should apply therefore barring Plaintiff from re-litigating a case already decided on the merits, specifically, negligence. The Court agreed, dismissing plaintiff’s case in advance of a trial on the merits.

    All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.


  7. P&R Achieves Defense Verdict in Wrongful Death Case

    October 24, 2011 by Christy

    On October 6, 2011 attorneys Andrew A. Protogyrou and Stricker C. Sanford won a

    any future case.


  8. 100-year sentence appealed in massive fraud case

    September 22, 2011 by Christy

    Andrew A. Protogyrou, argued his client’s case before a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on September 21, 2011.

    Attorney Protogyrou argued that Edward Hugh Okun’s sentence was greater than necessary and that appropriate consideration was not given to his age, health and lack of a prior criminal record. Protogyrou argued about the propriety of the April 27, 2007, search warrant of Okun’s Midlothian offices and that his indictment was flawed. Mr. Okun is accused of stealing $126 million dollars.

    Protogyrou also argued that the sentence was excessive in light of Okun’s age, health problems, which include triple coronary bypass surgery in 1990, and his small prior criminal record – a driving under the influence charge in 1980.

    Read the full article at: Richmond Times-Dispatch website

    All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.


  9. Circuit Court Jury Verdict

    August 30, 2011 by Christy

    On August 2, 2011 Andrew A. Protogyrou tried a civil jury in a local Circuit Court.

    The matter was a motor vehicle accident where the defendant struck the plaintiff’s vehicle in the rear. Defendant claimed to have been cut off by plaintiff’s lane change into his lane. The plaintiff testified she never changed lanes. The impact was moderate.

    Plaintiff claimed soft tissue injury to her neck, back, shoulder and right hip

    verdict for the plaintiff for $3,500.

    All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.