The Resource This record is part of the Office of the Attorney General record group (RG#5)

This record is part of the Office of the Attorney General record group (RG#5)

Label
1986-2014
Inclusive dates
1986-2014
Creator
Contributor
Subject
Genre
Language
eng
Summary
  • This series documents major litigation and claims of historical value concerning health, education and social service issues in which the Commonwealth, its agencies and personnel, are represented before all state and federal courts. May include correspondence, legal pleadings and briefs, supporting documentation, background research materials, transcripts, evidentiary exhibits and memoranda
  • Accession 41768 is housed in 9 boxes and is arranged chronologically. These records included correspondence, memorandums, affidavits, court pleadings, depositions, transcripts, court briefs, and press clippings. These records document Virginia's response to the case, United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), which invalidated the exclusion of women by the Virginia Military Institute
  • Notable correspondents include Paul J. Forch, Senior Assistant Attorney General, R. Claire Guthrie, Deputy Attorney General, Joseph M. Spivey, III, President, Board of Visitors of Virginia Military Institute, Mary Sue Terry, Virginia Attorney General (1986-1993), William G. Broaddus, from the Richmond law firm McGuire, Woods, Battle and Boothe and Theodore Olson, attorneys who represented V.M.I., William H. Hurd, Deputy Attorney General and James S. Gilmore, III, Virginia Attorney General (1994-1997). The correspondence include copies of pre-1989 letters and memorandums (1981 to 1986) by Paul J. Forch preparing for a possible lawsuit against the admission policy of V.M.I
  • Accession 42667 is housed in 31 boxes and is arranged by case. Included are the following cases: The Virginia Association Hospital v. Gerald L. Baliles, et al.; Marcel Rudin Tan Quibuyen v. Claude A. Allen; Rehabilitation Association of Virginia v. Kozlowski; and Planned Parenthood v. Camblos. These records include transcripts, correspondence, pleadings, research, exhibits, notes, briefs, depositions, and other sundry items
  • Accession 51675 is housed in 1 box. These records document the case of Vonda Hartmann, et al. v. Willima Lukhard, et al. (Civil Action No. 86-0622), 1986-2014. This case is from the Child Support Enforcement Section and includes pleadings, orders, decrees, and correspondence
Note
Agency history record describes the history and functions of the Virginia Office of the Attorney General. (Search Virginia Office of the Attorney General as author).
Member of
Action
  • Accessioned
  • Accessioned
  • Described
  • Described
Biographical or historical data
  • On 1 March 1990 the Justice Department under President George H. W. Bush sued Virginia over the male-only admissions policy at the Virginia Military Institute, a state-run military college located in Lexington, Virginia. The Federal Government contended the exclusion of women violated the Constitutions 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection.
  • In 1991, after a six day trial, the United States District Court, ruled that "diversity in education" was a legitamate state interest and upheld V.M.I's exclusion of women. The United States appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On 5 October 1992, the Court ruled that V.M.I. had violated the equal protection clause but added that Virginia's violation of the 14th Amendment was its failure to provide women an equal opportunity to develop the skills offered to men at V.M.I. Virginia subsequently established a state-funded military-style educational program for women at Mary Baldwin College and allowed women to attend Reserve Officers' Training Corps (R.O.T.C.) classes with men at V.M.I. which began operation in 1995.
  • The Justice Department under President William J. Clinton appealed the Fourth Circuit Court ruling in 1995 and the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. On 26 June 1996, the Supreme Court, in a 7 to 1 decision, ruled that V.M.I's exclusion of women was unconstitutional. In August 1997, 30 women enrolled at V.M.I.
  • In the case of the Virginia Association Hospital v. Gerald L. Baliles, et al., the case questions whether a health care provider may bring an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to challenge a State's Medicaid plan on the ground that it fails to provide "reasonable and adequate" reimbursement, in purported violation of 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(13)(A) (1982 & Supp. III 1985).
  • In the case of Marcel Rudin Tan Quibuyen v. Claude A. Allen, the parents of an autistic Fairfax man filed a class-action lawsuit to try to force the commonwealth of Virginia to pay for group homes and other types of assistance designed to keep mentally retarded adults out of institutions.
  • In the case of Virginia Huynh v. the Department of Medical Assistance Services, the dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the authority granted by Code 8.01-66.9 to a trial court to reduce a lien in favor of the Commonwealth for medical services rendered to an infant injured by the alleged negligence of her physician permits the trial court to exclude the Commonwealth from receiving any portion of the infant's settlement with the physician.
  • In the case of the Rehabilitation Association of Virginia v. Kozlowski, providers of rehabilitative services challenged the legality of parts of Virginia's Medicaid plan and sought prospective injunctive relief. The District Court found for the providers, and appeal was taken. This court affirms, holding that Virginia's plan for buying-in for certain Medicare recipients involved a Medicare program to be partially funded by Medicaid resources, and, thus Medicare reimbursement requirements governed which plan allowed direct payment to providers of rehabilitative services.
  • In the case of Planned Parenthood of Blue Ridge v. James L. Camblos, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that Virginia's Parental Notice Act, which requires a minor to notify a parent before undergoing an abortion to be facially valid under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In so doing, the Court of Appeals vacated a lower court's decision to enjoin enforcement of this statute. The U.S. Court of Appeals held that the Parental Notice Act furthers a parent's liberty interest in the emotional, moral, and spiritual development of his or her minor child, and facilitates access to relevant medical information. The Court emphasized that a parent cannot veto a minor's decision to have an abortion. The Court distinguished parental notice statutes from statutes that require parental consent for an abortion. Virginia's Parental Notice Act excepts notice, by minors seeking abortions, to abusive parents and to parents who have not assumed significant parental responsibility for their child.
Cataloging source
Vi
Form designation
Historical litigation and claims
Label
This record is part of the Office of the Attorney General record group (RG#5)
Note
This record is part of the Office of the Attorney General record group (RG#5)
http://library.link/vocab/branchCode
  • The Library of Virginia
Cumulative index finding aids
Inventory
Extent
41
Governing access note
Access is restricted to the Office of the Attorney General and those with the written permission of that office. Restrictions will be lifted 50 years after the records were received by the Library of Virginia
Immediate source of acquisition
  • Sharon P. Pannell, Office of the Attorney General
  • Sharon P. Pannell, Office of the Attorney General
http://library.link/vocab/recordID
001527128
Type of unit
cu. ft.

Library Locations

    • Library of VirginiaBorrow it
      800 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA, 23219, US
      37.5415632 -77.4360805
Processing Feedback ...