SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Significant Case Summary

Michael Stevens, et. al. v Steve Thomas Jurnigan, II
Supreme Court of Virginia
Record No. 250142

Decided: April 9, 2026

In a sex abuse case, a trial court may rule on law and contested facts when ruling on a plea in bar if some evidence is received, and it will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence.

Background

In 2017, Plaintiff, Steve Thomas Jurnigan, II, filed a lawsuit against Defendants Stevens, Bowens, and Southampton Bowen Club alleging sexual abuse while he was between 8-15 years old. Pursuant to Va. Code 8.01-249 (2002), Jurnigan needed to file the lawsuit within two years of his 18th birthday or within two years from discovering a causal connection between the abuse and his injury. Jurnigan alleges this connection was discovered in 2014. Defendants alleged it was discovered while Jurnigan was still in high school, and thus bars his claim. This was raised by Defendants as a plea in bar.

The Circuit Court for Sussex County held a hearing on the plea in bar. During the hearing, the parties submitted documentary evidence and Jurnigan’s deposition testimony. The Circuit Court determined, despite disputed facts, that enough evidence existed in Jurnigan’s owns statements to police and at his deposition to show a causal connection between the abuse and injuries which accrued in his high school years; therefore, his claim was barred. The Virginia Court of Appeals reversed this ruling after treating the plea in bar like a motion for summary judgment and reviewing the evidence de novo. The Court of Appeals held that when facts are still in dispute, the issue could not be decided by the trial judge.

Holding

The Supreme Court of Virginia struck down the Court of Appeals in force and re-instated the trial court’s ruling. A plea in bar is not the same as a motion for summary judgment. Further, when evidence is presented at a plea in bar hearing, the trial judge may decide the law and disputed facts. If this evidence is presented through oral testimony, it is akin to a jury verdict. If the evidence is presented through some other form, it is still given substantial deference and will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence. Therefore, the trial court’s finding that Jurnigan’s own statements acknowledging mental anguish from the abuse while still in high school established a causal connection between the abuse and injury sufficient to trigger the statute of limitations was not plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence.

Questions about this case can be directed to Danielle Kent at (804) 566-3571 or dkent@tthlaw.com.