{"id":"DUT-VA-018","kind":"duty","level":"court","jurisdiction":"Virginia (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division)","state":"VA","metro":"","industry":"","agency":"","eco":"","issuer":"John A. Gibney, Jr., United States District Judge","authority":"Tigges v. Northam, 473 F. Supp. 3d 559 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2020)","instrument":"Tigges v. Northam, Memorandum Order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction (Dk. No. 19), Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-410","title":"Tigges v. Northam, 473 F. Supp. 3d 559 (E.D. Va. 2020)","dateIssued":"2020-07-21","effective":"2020-07-21","end":"Final as to the preliminary injunction; the Phase Three order it upheld ran, as amended, to Dec. 13, 2020","startDate":"2020-07-21","endDate":"2020-12-13","quarters":["2020Q3"],"types":["CAP","GATH","MASK","COND","OTHER"],"addressees":["specified businesses (a wedding and event venue qualifying as a \u0027dining establishment\u0027 or \u0027winery\u0027); by its reasoning, every business under the Phase Three and face-covering orders"],"clause":"Tigges may provide indoor and outdoor service at Zion Springs, provided that he complies with the other restrictions set forth in the Phase Three Order. He may host events involving 250 or fewer individuals. Employees working in customer-facing areas must wear a face covering.... patrons spending time indoors at Zion Springs must wear a face covering as provided in the Face Covering Order.","enforcement":"Not a penalty instrument; it left the orders and their Class 1 misdemeanor enforcement in force","functions":[],"notes":"A federal court\u0027s finding, on the Commonwealth\u0027s own orders, that a Virginia business operated in July 2020 only on the conditions the Phase Three and face-covering orders imposed, and its conclusion that \u0027Restrictions on non-essential businesses, limitations on public and private gatherings, and requirements to wear face coverings all relate directly to the Commonwealth\u0027s efforts to slow the rate of infection of COVID-19\u0027 and bear a \u0027real or substantial relation\u0027 to the pandemic under Jacobson; the motion to enjoin enforcement was denied. Character as recorded: adjudication (order_operating_condition layer).","sourceUrl":"https://casetext.com/case/tigges-v-northam","snapshot":"https://web.archive.org/web/20220331044421/https://casetext.com/case/tigges-v-northam","fileExists":true,"fileBytes":355550,"grade":"primary","character":"adjudication","description":"","collection":"DUT-VA","url":"/library/DUT-VA-018","exhibitUrl":"/exhibit/DUT-VA-018","citation":"John A. Gibney, Jr., United States District Judge, Tigges v. Northam, Memorandum Order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction (Dk. No. 19), Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-410 (July 21, 2020) (Ex. DUT-VA-018)","stateName":"Virginia","related":["DUT-VA-019"]}