PRESENT: All the Justices
RUTH S. ANDREWS
OPINION BY
v. Record No. 022434 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS
September 12, 2003
WILLIAM DALE RING AND
JIMMY DON BOLT
WILLIAM COX
v. Record No. 022243
WILLIAM DALE RING AND
JIMMY DON BOLT
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GRAYSON COUNTY
Barnard F. Jennings, Judge Designate
In this consolidated appeal involving two separate suits
alleging malicious prosecution and statutory conspiracy to cause
injury to “reputation, trade, business or profession” against
the Commonwealth’s Attorney of Grayson County and the Building
Inspector of Grayson County, we consider whether the trial court
erred by granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment.
Because the trial court granted summary judgment pursuant to
Rule 3:18, our review of the facts is limited to pleadings,
orders, and admissions of the parties.
I. Facts and Proceedings Below
During all times relevant to this case, Ruth S. Andrews
(“Andrews”) was the Chairperson of the Grayson County School
Board; William Cox (“Cox”) was the Director of School
Maintenance for Grayson County; Jimmy Don Bolt (“Bolt”) was the
Commonwealth’s Attorney of Grayson County; and William Dale Ring
(“Ring”) was the Building Inspector of Grayson County.
On August 1, 2000, upon direction of Cox and on behalf of
the Grayson County School Board, David G. Cornett, an employee
of the Grayson County School Maintenance Department, applied for
and received a building permit to install an above-ground
storage tank on the premises of Grayson County High School. On
August 7, 2000, employees in the Maintenance Department,
personally supervised and directed by Cox, poured a concrete pad
designed to support the proposed above-ground storage tank. At
Cox’s direction, the site upon which the concrete pad was poured
had been excavated July 31, 2000, the day prior to issuance of
the building permit. On August 28, 2000, Cox and Ring discussed
the project, and Ring informed Cox that his office needed a
letter from the project’s architect “stating that the concrete
pad was adequate to support the weight of the proposed storage
tank.” On September 6, 2000, Cox delivered a letter from
William W. Huber, the project architect, to Ring, which
“confirmed that a structural engineer evaluated the slab
thickness needed to support the . . . tank and determined that
the . . . pad was structurally adequate for supporting the
proposed tank.”
On September 8, 2000, at the direction of Bolt, Ring
appeared before a magistrate for Grayson County, and filed a
2
criminal complaint against Andrews, Cox, and Dr. Alvin C.
Proffit 1 (“Dr. Proffit”), the Superintendent of Grayson County
Schools, alleging that they “[f]ailed to obtain a Building
Permit before beginning work on a 10,000 Gallon Storage tank[]”
and “[c]onceal[ed] work prior to the required inspection by
pouring concrete slab.” On September 11, 2000, Andrews, Cox,
and Dr. Proffit were served with warrants requiring them to
appear before the General District Court of Grayson County for
arraignment and trial. However, on the date set for trial,
October 3, 2000, Bolt moved the court to nolle prosequi the
charges against all three defendants. Bolt and Ring claim that
the decision to nolle prosequi the charges was the result of
settlement negotiations. Andrews and Cox deny that any
agreement to settle the criminal charges was reached.
On September 4, 2001, Andrews and Cox filed separate
motions for judgment in the Circuit Court of Grayson County
against Ring and Bolt alleging malicious prosecution and
conspiracy to injure reputation, trade, business, and profession
pursuant to Code §§ 18.2-499 and 18.2-500. Ring and Bolt filed
responsive pleadings which included several demurrers and
special pleas of immunity. On November 29, 2001, the parties
1
Dr. Profitt, now a resident of North Carolina, filed an
action similar to the present Virginia litigation against Ring
and Bolt in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, Abingdon Division.
3
appeared before the trial court to present argument on the
demurrers and special pleas filed by Ring and Bolt. By order
dated January 11, 2002, the trial court overruled Ring’s and
Bolt’s special pleas of immunity without prejudice and overruled
each demurrer. The trial court ordered Ring and Bolt to file
grounds of defense.
On April 8, 2002, Ring and Bolt filed separate motions for
summary judgment. On April 30, 2002, the trial court heard
argument from the parties on the motions for summary judgment.
With regard to the malicious prosecution allegation, the trial
court held that there was sufficient probable cause justifying
the issuance of the warrants. Additionally, the trial court
held that Andrews and Cox could not recover damages for injury
to their personal reputations under Code §§ 18.2-499 and -500.
The trial court granted both motions for summary judgment. In
its final order in each case, the trial court stated that
“Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED for the
reasons and on the grounds stated on the record at the hearing
of Defendants’ motions and for the reasons and on the grounds
stated in the Defendants’ memoranda in support thereof.”
Andrews and Cox appeal the adverse judgments of the trial court.
II. Analysis
Summary judgment upon all or any part of a claim may be
granted to a party entitled to such judgment when no genuine
4
issue of material fact remains in dispute, and the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 3:18; Renner
v. Stafford, 245 Va. 351, 353, 429 S.E.2d 218, 220 (1993). A
grant of summary judgment must be based upon undisputed facts
established by pleadings, admissions in pleadings, and
admissions made in answers to requests for admissions. 2
Additionally, the trial court must consider inferences from the
facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
unless the inferences are strained, forced or contrary to
reason. Carson v. LeBlanc, 245 Va. 135, 139-40, 427 S.E.2d 189,
192 (1993).
Andrews and Cox present identical assignments of error.
They assert that the trial court erred in granting summary
judgment to Bolt and Ring on the statutory conspiracy count and
on the malicious prosecution count of their respective motions
for judgment, and they further assert that summary judgment
should not have been granted before discovery was concluded.
A. Statutory Conspiracy under Code §§ 18.2-499 and –500
Andrews and Cox each allege that “Ring and Bolt acted in
concert to willfully and maliciously injure [them] in [their]
business, trade, and reputation” and seek damages from Bolt and
Ring under the statutory conspiracy provisions of Code §§ 18.2-
2
Of course, the trial court may consider the stipulations
of the parties, answers to interrogatories and deposition
5
499 and –500. A violation of Code § 18.2-499 is punished as a
Class 1 misdemeanor. Additionally, Code § 18.2-500 provides a
civil remedy for a violation of Code § 18.2-499. Bolt and Ring
argue that the scope of the conspiracy statute is limited to
injury to business interests and does not extend to injury to
personal reputation even in the context of employment.
The conspiracy statute was once codified as part of the
antitrust laws of the Commonwealth. See Code § 59-21.1 (Cum.
Supp. 1962) (superseded). In 1964, the General Assembly removed
the conspiracy provisions from the antitrust statutes and placed
them in the criminal code with much greater sanctions. See Code
§ 18.1-74.1:1 (superseded) (Chapter 623, 1964 Acts of Assembly).
We conclude that the origin of Code §§ 18.2-499 and –500
establishes that they apply to business and property interests,
not to personal or employment interests.
Traditional statutory construction requires the same
conclusion. Code § 18.2-499 proscribes conspiracy to
“willfully, and maliciously injur[e] another in his reputation,
trade, business or profession.” The maxim of noscitur a sociis
provides that the meaning of doubtful words in a statute may be
determined by reference to their association with related words
and phrases. When general words and specific words are grouped
together, the general words are limited and qualified by the
testimony if the parties agree.
6
specific words and will be construed to embrace only objects
similar in nature to those objects identified by the specific
words. Commonwealth v. United Airlines, Inc., 219 Va. 374, 389,
248 S.E.2d 124, 132-33 (1978). Here the word “reputation” is at
issue. Within the statute, its association with “trade,
business or profession” requires the exclusion of personal
reputation and interest in employment from the scope of the
statute’s coverage. We note that federal courts in Virginia
have reached similar holdings. See Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d
1240, 1259 (4th Cir. 1985), Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Jones, 577 F.Supp. 968, 970 (W.D. Va. 1984).
The undisputed facts subject to proper consideration by the
trial court upon motions for summary judgment on this issue
clearly establish that Andrews and Cox seek damages for injury
to personal reputation and employment interests. As a matter of
law, an action under the Code §§ 18.2-499 and –500 may not
embrace such claims. With causes of action based upon statutory
conspiracy removed from consideration, we must now consider
claims of malicious prosecution.
B. Immunity of the Prosecutor
Bolt, the Commonwealth’s Attorney of Grayson County,
maintains that, upon the record of these cases, he is entitled
to absolute immunity from suit. The absolute immunity of
prosecutors from civil liability for acts within the scope of
7
their duties and intimately associated with the judicial phase
of the criminal process is derivative of judicial immunity. As
we have previously held, “[i]t is clear that judges enjoy
absolute immunity from civil liability, even when they act
maliciously or corruptly or in excess of their jurisdiction.
Judges can be held liable only when they act in ‘clear absence
of all jurisdiction.’ ” Harlow v. Clatterbuck, 230 Va. 490,
493, 339 S.E.2d 181, 184 (1986) (quoting Johnston v. Moorman, 80
Va. 131, 142 (1885)). “The common-law immunity of a prosecutor
is based upon the same considerations that underlie the common-
law immunities of judges and grand jurors acting within the
scope of their duties.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 422-23
(1976).
In Imbler, the Supreme Court noted that the prosecutor’s
actions “were intimately associated with the judicial phase of
the criminal process, and thus were functions to which the
reasons for absolute immunity apply with full force.” Id. at
430. But the Court specifically reserved the question “whether
like or similar reasons require immunity for those aspects of
the prosecutor’s responsibility that cast him in the role of an
administrator or investigative officer rather than that of
advocate.” Id. at 430-431.
Later, in Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) the Court held
that absolute prosecutorial immunity from suit recognized in
8
Imbler did not extend to giving advice to police officers. The
Court observed that: “Absolute immunity is designed to free the
judicial process from the harassment and intimidation associated
with litigation. . . . That concern therefore justifies
absolute prosecutorial immunity only for actions that are
connected with the prosecutor’s role in judicial proceedings,
not for every litigation-inducing conduct.” Burns at 494. In
the case before us, Andrews and Cox argue that Bolt gave
“advice” to Ring, and that pursuant to Burns, Bolt is not
entitled to absolute immunity. We disagree with Andrews and Cox
because this Court is not compelled to follow Burns.
The determination whether absolute prosecutorial immunity
is extended to the prosecutor in this case is a matter of state
common law not federal law. The principle is well-established
in the seminal case of Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78
(1938), where the Court stated:
Except in matters governed by the Federal
Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law
to be applied in any case is the law of the
State. And whether the law of the State
shall be declared by its Legislature in a
statute or by its highest court in a
decision is not a matter of federal concern.
There is no federal general common law.
Congress has no power to declare substantive
rules of common law applicable in a State
whether they be local in their nature or
“general,” be they commercial law or a part
of the law of torts. And no clause in the
Constitution purports to confer such a power
upon the federal courts.
9
This fundamental principle of federalism was expressed by
the Supreme Court of North Carolina when it noted: “The views
of the Supreme Court of the United States . . . are not binding
upon this Court with regard to questions of North Carolina
common law – questions as to which this Court’s holding . . . is
the final and controlling authority.” Johnson v. Ruark
Obstetrics & Gynecology Assoc., P.A., 395 S.E.2d 85, 92 (N.C.
1990). See also, Harter v. Vernon, 101 F.3d 334, 342 (4th Cir.
1996)(“Our holdings on questions of state law do not bind state
courts, nor do state court determinations on questions of
federal law control us.”).
The process by which an accused may be charged with a
criminal offense in Virginia includes indictment, presentment,
information, arrest warrant, or summons. When a prosecutor is
involved in the initiation of the criminal process, it may take
the form of preparation of an indictment for consideration by a
Grand Jury, direction to a law enforcement officer to obtain a
warrant or summons, or advice to a law enforcement officer that
sufficient probable cause exists for the obtaining of a warrant
or a summons. For the purposes of determining a prosecutor’s
absolute immunity from suit, these are distinctions without a
material difference. In each case where a prosecutor is
involved in the charging process, under Virginia law, that
10
action is intimately connected with the prosecutor’s role in
judicial proceedings and the prosecutor is entitled to absolute
immunity from suit for such actions. Consequently, Bolt is
entitled to absolute immunity from suit on the counts in each
motion for judgment alleging malicious prosecution. We do not
decide in this case whether actions of a prosecutor in the role
of investigator or administrator are entitled to absolute
immunity.
C. Malicious Prosecution Claims Against Ring
We have recently restated the following principles:
In an action for malicious prosecution,
the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the
prosecution was (1) malicious; (2)
instituted by, or with the cooperation of,
the defendant; (3) without probable cause;
and (4) terminated in a manner not
unfavorable to the plaintiff. . . .
In the context of a malicious
prosecution action, probable cause is
defined as knowledge of such facts and
circumstances to raise the belief in a
reasonable mind, acting on those facts and
circumstances, that the plaintiff is guilty
of the crime of which he is suspected. The
determination whether a defendant had
probable cause to believe that a crime was
committed is judged with reference to the
time the defendant took the action
initiating the criminal charges. When the
facts relating to the question of probable
cause are in dispute, the issue is one of
fact to be resolved by the trier of fact.
Stanley v. Webber, 260 Va. 90, 95-96, 531 S.E.2d 311, 314-15
(2000) (internal citations omitted). “[W]hat constitutes
11
probable cause is a question for the court; but where there is
any conflict in the evidence it is for the jury to determine
whether in the particular case such probable cause existed.”
Brodie v. Huck, 187 Va. 485, 488, 47 S.E.2d 310, 312 (1948).
Additionally,
[w]hen a defendant, in initiating a
prosecution, acts in good faith upon the
advice of reputable counsel, after a full
disclosure of all material facts, he has
probable cause to support his action.
Probable cause serves as a complete defense
to an action for malicious prosecution, even
if the advice given by the attorney is
wrong. The defendant must prove that he
sought advice of counsel with an honest
purpose of being informed of the law, that
he made a full, correct and honest
disclosure of all material facts known to
him or which he should reasonably have
known, and that he acted in good faith
guided by the advice given by counsel. This
defense usually presents a jury question
unless reasonable minds cannot differ that
advice of counsel has been established.
Pallas v. Zaharopoulos, 219 Va. 751, 755, 250 S.E.2d 357, 359-60
(1979) (internal citations omitted).
1. Probable Cause
The issuance of a criminal warrant must be supported by
probable cause that a crime was committed and probable cause
that the person charged committed the crime. Code § 36-106
provides sanctions for violation of the Uniform Statewide
Building Code (“USBC”). Ring’s affidavits supporting the
issuance of criminal warrants against Andrews and Cox state:
12
“Failed to obtain a Building Permit before beginning work on a
10,000 Gallon Storage tank. Concealing work prior to the
required inspection by pouring concrete slab.” USBC § 107.1
provides that:
[a]n application shall be submitted to the
code official for the following activities,
and these activities shall not commence
without a permit being issued in accordance
with Section 108.0[:]
1. Construct or alter a structure.
2. Construct an addition.
3. Demolish or move a structure.
4. Make a change of occupancy.
5. Install or alter any equipment which is
regulated by this code.
6. Move a lot line which affects an
existing structure.
USBC § 113.2 provides that:
[t]he permit holder shall assure that the
following inspections have been conducted
and approved by the code official . . . :
1. Inspection of footing excavations and
reinforcement material for concrete
footings prior to the placement of
concrete.
2. Inspection of foundation systems during
phases of construction necessary to
assure compliance with this code.
3. Inspection of preparatory work prior to
the placement of concrete.
4. Inspection of structural members and
fasteners prior to concealment.
Undisputed facts properly considered for resolution of a
motion for summary judgment establish that excavation of the
area for the tank occurred before the issuance of the building
permit and that a concrete pad was poured without inspection.
13
Cox asserts that the building permit was issued to the School
Board and not to him; consequently, he could not be held
responsible for violations of the USBC. But the undisputed
facts establish that Cox was Director of School Maintenance, he
was supervising the construction for the tank, he directed a
construction company to excavate the site on the day before the
permit was issued, he directed an employee to obtain the permit,
and he and persons under his direction poured concrete before
obtaining an inspection. When a corporation or other entity
acts through individuals and such action “involves a violation
of the law, the correct rule is that all who participate in it
are liable.” Crall v. Commonwealth, 103 Va. 855, 859, 49 S.E.
638, 640 (1905).
Andrews and Cox maintain that there is a factual dispute
over whether a building permit was required for the excavation
and whether an inspection was required before pouring concrete.
The interpretation of the requirements of the USBC is a matter
of law, implicitly resolved against them by the trial court’s
ruling from the bench that “there was probable cause for the
issuance of [the warrants].”
The undisputed facts properly considered upon motion for
summary judgment establish that probable cause existed for the
issuance of the warrant against Cox. But this record does not
support a finding upon summary judgment that the warrant against
14
Andrews was issued with probable cause that Andrews participated
in any acts in violation of the law. Andrews was the
Chairperson of the Grayson County School Board, an unlikely
person to be directing on-site construction and pouring
concrete. At this stage in the proceeding there is no evidence
of any act on her part that provided probable cause that she
committed the building code violation in question, and her
status as Chairperson of the School Board does not result in
vicarious liability for the acts in question.
2. Advice of Counsel Defense
Reliance upon advice of reputable counsel after full
disclosure of all material facts provides a complete defense to
an action for malicious prosecution, even if the attorney’s
advice is wrong. Justified reliance suffices to establish
probable cause to support the initial prosecution. Noell v.
Angle, 217 Va. 656, 660, 231 S.E.2d 330, 333 (1977). In this
case, it is unclear whether an accurate disclosure of all
material facts was made. Upon review of this record, we hold
that the evidence properly considered for summary judgment
purposes does not support a grant of summary judgment on this
question.
3. Voluntary Compromise of Criminal Complaints
A voluntary compromise ending a criminal prosecution
defeats a subsequent suit for malicious prosecution. Orndorff
15
v. Bond, 185 Va. 497, 502, 39 S.E.2d 352, 354 (1946). Ring
alleges that such a compromise was reached in the General
District Court of Grayson County when the nolle prosequi was
entered in the underlying criminal matters. Andrews and Cox say
that no agreement was reached. It is undisputed that a nolle
prosequi was entered. Why it was entered and whether it was the
result of a compromise cannot be determined by summary judgment
on this record.
4. Quasi-Judicial Immunity
Ring maintains that he is entitled to the absolute immunity
provided by quasi-judicial immunity because he characterizes his
actions as those of a prosecutor, involving functions intimately
related to the judicial process. As previously addressed, under
defined circumstances, a prosecutor may have absolute immunity,
in the nature of quasi-judicial immunity, from civil liability.
Burns, 500 U.S. at 492; Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430. We have
recognized that quasi-judicial immunity may extend to certain
non-judicial public officials acting within their jurisdiction,
in good faith, and while performing judicial functions. Harlow,
230 Va. at 493, 339 S.E.2d at 184. In conducting this analysis,
we apply “the ‘functional comparability’ test established by the
United States Supreme Court in Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478
(1978).” Harlow, 230 Va. at 494, 339 S.E.2d at 184. We must
examine whether the act in question shares enough of the
16
characteristics of the judicial process to justify immunity. We
conclude that Ring’s duties as a building inspector are more
akin to those of a police officer in the enforcement of laws,
rules and regulations, than a prosecutor in the judicial
process. As a matter of law, Ring is not entitled to the
absolute immunity afforded by quasi-judicial immunity.
5. Qualified Immunity
In the alternative, Ring maintains that if he is not
entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, he is, nonetheless,
entitled to the same qualified immunity extended to police
officers for actions taken in good faith and with probable
cause. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 557 (1967). “A
defendant who asserts the qualified immunity defense, not the
plaintiff, must allege and prove the elements comprising this
defense.” Jordan v. Shands, 255 Va. 492, 499, 500 S.E.2d 215,
219 (1998). Ring argues that Andrews and Cox have “not
presented any facts that support a claim of actual malice.” On
this question the burden of proof is on Ring, not Andrews and
Cox. Upon review of this record, we hold that the evidence
properly considered for summary judgment purposes does not
support a grant of summary judgment on this question.
D. Grant of Summary Judgment
Before Conclusion of Discovery
17
The pre-trial scheduling order entered in early February,
2002, set the first day of trial in these cases for June 6,
2002. Andrews and Cox thereafter noticed depositions of an
employee of the Maintenance Department of the School Board and
the attorney for the School Board, for the afternoon of April
30, 2002, the same day as the motions for summary judgment were
to be heard before the trial court. Andrews and Cox assert that
the trial court erred in granting summary judgment from the
bench on April 30 (memorialized later in the final orders in
June and July, 2002), prior to the conclusion of discovery in
the case. This argument has no merit. Pursuant to the pre-
trial order the deadline for serving written discovery was mid-
April, 2002. No written discovery was pending response as of
the latter half of April, 2002. Without agreement of the
parties, only answers to requests for admissions could further
supplement the evidence properly considered by the trial court
for the motions for summary judgment. The noticed depositions
could not, absent stipulation of the litigants, have been used
as the basis for summary adjudication. Simply stated, Andrews
and Cox cannot show that the record upon which summary judgment
was granted would have been any different if the trial court had
delayed its ruling.
III. Conclusion
18
The trial court did not err in its grant of summary
judgment against Andrews and Cox upon their causes of action for
statutory conspiracy under Code §§ 18.2-499 and -500. On the
remaining causes of action for malicious prosecution, the trial
court did not err in its grant of summary judgment in favor of
Bolt. Because the undisputed facts properly considered upon
motion for summary judgment demonstrate that there was probable
cause for the issuance of the criminal warrant against Cox, the
trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for Ring on
Cox’s suit for malicious prosecution. However, the evidence
properly considered by the trial court upon summary judgment did
not support a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a
criminal warrant against Andrews. Furthermore, Ring’s various
remaining defenses either are not available to him as a matter
of law or they are insufficient on this record to support a
grant of summary judgment. Accordingly, the trial court erred
in granting summary judgment in favor of Ring and dismissing
Andrews’ cause of action for malicious prosecution. For the
reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed
in part, reversed in part and Andrews’ cause of action for
malicious prosecution against Ring will be remanded for further
proceedings.
Record No. 022434 – Reversed in part,
affirmed in part,
and remanded.
19
Record No. 022243 - Affirmed.
20