This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
- 5 -
On March 17, 2025, Cline filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court
subsequently denied on April 14, 2025. It entered the final order on May 24, 2025,
memorializing its findings from the February 4th hearing. Cline appeals.
ANALYSIS
I. Standard of Review
Whether a trial court erred in granting a plea in bar “is a mixed question of law and fact
that this Court reviews de novo.” Commonwealth ex rel. Fair Hous. Bd. v. Windsor Plaza
Condo. Ass’n, 289 Va. 34, 58 (2014). “For those issues that present mixed questions of law and
fact, we give deference to the trial court’s findings of fact and view the facts in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party, but we review the trial court’s application of the law to those
facts de novo.” Collins v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 272 Va. 744, 749 (2006). When the “parties
present evidence on the plea ore tenus, the circuit court’s factual findings are accorded the
weight of a jury finding and will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are plainly wrong or
without evidentiary support.” Massenburg v. City of Petersburg, 298 Va. 212, 216 (2019)
(quoting Hawthorne v. VanMarter, 279 Va. 566, 577 (2010)).
The decision of whether to grant a demurrer is a question of law, and appellate courts
must review the trial court’s judgment de novo. Dunn, McCormack & MacPherson v. Connolly,
281 Va. 553, 557 (2011) (quoting Abi-Najm v. Concord Condo., LLC, 280 Va. 350, 357 (2010)).
II. Malicious Prosecution
In the Commonwealth, actions for malicious prosecution arising out of criminal
proceedings are disfavored. Ayyildiz v. Kidd, 220 Va. 1080, 1082 (1980). Plaintiffs bringing
forward these malicious prosecution actions are subject to strict requirements, which “are
designed to encourage persons to bring criminal actions in appropriate cases without fear of Jump to an indexed page (13 of 13)