Skip to main content
Kyle G. Manikas
Avvo
Pro

Kyle Manikas’s Legal Cases

14 total


  • Roskopf v. Commonwealth

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Outcome:
    constitutionality of ordinance upheld
    Description:
    Plaintiff, via a complaint for declaratory judgment, challenged a Fairfax County ordinance as void, under Va. Const. art. VII, § 7. Given that the official record of county board action clearly showed a recorded affirmative vote of a majority of all elected members, and listed the name of each member voting and his or her vote, the court found that this written record - which was the official record of the board of supervisors' action - fully satisfies art. VII, § 7, and therefore also found that the ordinance was validly enacted, and that the plaintiff's conviction based on its violation was valid.
  • Commonwealth v. Douglas

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jan 04, 2007
    Outcome:
    Motion Denied
    Description:
    defendant's convictions and sentences were upheld on appeal, he filed various petitions requesting relief that were declared to be without merit. Almost five years after the convictions and sentences were entered, defendant filed his notice to vacate. Defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction over him. The court found that because the parental notice requirement articulated in Baker was procedural, defendant's Baker claim was waived because it was not raised previously in a timely objection under Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-272.1. Although defendant might have been under age 18 at the time of his first trial, the certification of defendant as an adult divested the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of jurisdiction. Defendant failed to raise any Fourth Amendment challenge prior to his motion to vacate that would render his current conviction or sentence void.
  • United States v. Southern Belle Dairy Co., LLC

    Practice Area:
    White Collar Crime
    Date:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Outcome:
    Resolved
    Description:
    REQUIRED DISCLAIMER: CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE UNDERTAKEN BY A LAWYER. The United States Department of Justice alleged that Defendant/DFA violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18 through DFA's partial acquisition of Southern Belle Dairy Co., LLC in 2002.
  • Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Outcome:
    Counsel for Amici Curiae
    Description:
    REQUIRED DISCLAIMER: CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE UNDERTAKEN BY A LAWYER. The collaborator abducted the alien and delivered him to federal agents in the United States who arrested the alien, but the alien was acquitted of complicity in the murder of a federal agent in Mexico. The alien contended that the United States was liable for false arrest under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), and that the alien was liable under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C.S. § 1350, for violation of the international law of nations. The United States Supreme Court held, however, that neither the FTCA nor the ATS provided a remedy for the alien. Despite the alien's assertion that the government's control of the abduction in the United States precluded application of the FTCA exception for claims arising in a foreign country, the exception applied since the alleged harm occurred in Mexico, regardless of whether conduct in the United States was a proximate cause of the harm. Further, while the jurisdictional scope of the ATS extended to recognition of limited claims for violations of the law of nations, the alien's brief illegal detention prior to his transfer to lawful authorities did not amount to a violation of a well defined norm of customary international law.
  • Commonwealth of Virginia v. Defendant

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Case dismissed at preliminary hearing
    Description:
    REQUIRED DISCLAIMER: CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE UNDERTAKEN BY A LAWYER. It was alleged that a dispute between husband and wife turned violent and resulted in one spouse stabbing the other with a knife. The case was charged as felony class 3 malicious wounding.
  • Commonwealth of Virginia v. Defendant

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Case dismissed at preliminary hearing
    Description:
    REQUIRED DISCLAIMER: CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE UNDERTAKEN BY A LAWYER. Client was charged with felony possession with intent to distribute (PWID) illegal drugs.
  • Commonwealth of Virginia v. Defendant

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Case dismissed on date of trial
    Description:
    REQUIRED DISCLAIMER: CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE UNDERTAKEN BY A LAWYER. Client was charged with four counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The case was dismissed on the trial date.
  • Commonwealth of Virginia v. Defendant

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Case dismissed
    Description:
    REQUIRED DISCLAIMER: CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE UNDERTAKEN BY A LAWYER. Client retained my services very early in the process and I was able to get the felony embezzlement warrant dismissed (nolle prosed) before it was ever served on the client.
  • Commonwealth of Virginia v. Defendant

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Case resolved at preliminary hearing
    Description:
    REQUIRED DISCLAIMER: CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE UNDERTAKEN BY A LAWYER. Client was involved in a very serious hit and run felony offense where several cars were involved and multiple people were transported to the hospital. I was able to get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor and avoided active jail and any license suspension.
  • Commonwealth of Virginia v. Defendant

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Case resolved at preliminary hearing
    Description:
    REQUIRED DISCLAIMER: CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE UNDERTAKEN BY A LAWYER. Client was charged with seven counts of felony forgery, each of which was punishable by up to 10 years in prison (70 years maximum possible imprisonment). I was able to get the seven felony forgery charges reduced to two misdemeanors at preliminary hearing and the client did not have to serve any active jail time.