green
Positive treatment
10.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Holland v. Holland
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
But see, Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 572 , 471 S.E.2d 809 , aff'd en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996) (finding alimony payments to prior wife constitute “dissipation”); Luczkovich v. Luczkovich, 26 Va. App. 702, 714 , 496 S.E.2d 157 (1998) (affirming trial court determination that husband did not satisfy burden of proof to show propriety of expenditures through line of credit); Barker v. Barker, 27 Va. App. 519, 536 , 500 S.E.2d 240 (1998) (payment of separate debt with marital funds considered as a negative contribution for purposes of equitable distribution).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lowell F. Smith v. Alice L. Thornton-Smith
The party claiming the existence of a gift must prove by clear and convincing evidence “(1) intention on the part of the donor to make a gift; (2) delivery or transfer of the gift; and (3) acceptance of the gift by the donee.” Id. at 566, 471 S.E.2d at 813 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
George Thomas West, Jr. v. Patricia West
The party claiming the existence of a gift must prove by clear and convincing evidence "(1) intention on the part of the donor to make a gift; (2) delivery or transfer of the gift; and (3) acceptance of the gift by the donee." Id. at 566, 471 S.E.2d at 813 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Christian Jason Rowe
See Janis v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 646, 652 , adopted upon reh’g en banc, 23 Va. App. 696 (1996); see also Cole, 294 Va. at 354 (noting that at a hearing on a motion to suppress, the Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing that evidence was obtained within the bounds of the Constitution).
discussed
Cited "see"
Charles J. DeLanoy v. Robin R. DeLanoy
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 566 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 813 (affirming a finding of donative intent where the husband sent the wife cards indicating that a farm “was ‘our home’” and that “money was hers to spend”), aff’d on reh’g en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996); see also Watts v. Watts, 40 Va. App. 685, 702 , 581 S.E.2d 224, 233 (2003) (reversing the trial court’s finding that the disputed items were the wife’s separate property when she testified that using her inheritance money to buy the items “‘was something [nice she] wanted to do’ for…
discussed
Cited "see"
Kyle Pritchett Macione v. Beatriz Huarte Irujo Macione
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 566 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 813 (affirming a finding of donative intent where the husband sent the wife cards indicating that a farm “was ‘our home’” and that “money was hers to spend”), aff’d on reh’g en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996); see also Watts v. Watts, 40 Va. App. 685, 702 , 581 S.E.2d 224, 233 (2003) (reversing the trial court’s finding that the disputed items were the wife’s separate property when she testified that using her inheritance money to buy the items “‘was something [nice she] wanted to do’ for…
discussed
Cited "see"
William Jurdan Davis, Jr. v. Martha Fern Atkinson Davis
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 574 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 817 (holding that husband’s “clearly superior financial position” and the fact that his infidelity caused the break-up of the marriage justified an award of attorney’s fees to wife), aff’d upon reh’g en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robinson v. Robinson
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va.App. 557, 573 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 817 (rejecting wife’s argument that her spousal support award was inadequate even though it would not allow her to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and husband could afford to pay more), aff'd on reh’g en banc, 23 Va.App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Christopher Richmond Coleman v. Commonwealth of Virginia
(2×)
See Janis v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 646, 651 , 472 S.E.2d 649, 652 (holding that exclusion is not an appropriate remedy when a state statute is violated “‘absent an express statutory provision for suppression’” (quoting Troncoso v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 942, 944 , 407 S.E.2d 349, 350 (1991))), aff'd on reh’g en banc, 23 Va. App. 696 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
McKee v. McKee
(2×)
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va.App. 557, 573 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 817 (holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impute income to a spouse where the spouse “had made preliminary efforts at reentering the workforce and that she had not refused any offers of employment”), aff'd on reh’g en banc, 23 Va.App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas Joseph Goudreau v. Katherine Lynn Goudreau
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 572 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 816 (declining to address an argument on appeal that was inadequately developed in appellant’s brief), aff’d en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ranney v. Ranney
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va.App. 557, 564-65 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 812 (“The goal of equitable distribution is to adjust the property interests of the spouses fairly and equitably.”), aff'd on rehearing en banc, 23 Va.App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Budnick v. Budnick
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va.App. 557, 569 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 815 , aff'd upon reh’g en banc, 23 Va.App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996); O’Loughlin, 20 Va.App. at 528, 458 S.E.2d at 326 .
cited
Cited "see"
Aubrey J El v. Dept of Social Servs, etc
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 572 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 816 , aff'd, 23 Va. App. 687 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996) (en banc).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Vick
See Janis v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 646, 651 , 472 S.E.2d 649, 652 , aff'd on reh’g en banc, 23 Va. App. 696 , 479 S.E.2d 53 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Mary Ann Rowe v. Charles S. Rowe
See generally Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va.App. 557, 568 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 814 (1996), aff'd en banc, 23 Va.App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Charles S. Rowe v. Mary Ann Rowe
See generally Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 568 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 814 (1996), aff'd en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Colaw v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See Janis v. Commonwealth, 22 Va.App. 646, 653-54 , 472 S.E.2d 649, 653 (1996) (holding that the “affidavit gave absolutely no indication that the fruits of criminal activity would *814 probably be found at that location, rendering [the officer’s] belief in probable cause, based solely on the affidavit, objectively unreasonable ”), aff'd en banc, 23 Va.App. 696 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996); see also Atkins, 9 Va.App. at 464 , 389 S.E.2d at 180 (holding that evidence was admissible under the good faith exception where the affidavit contained “a detailed description of the nature of the offen…
discussed
Cited "see"
Judith Cochrane Gilman v. W. Pettus Gilman
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 574 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 817 (holding that husband's "clearly superior financial position" and the fact that his infidelity caused the break-up of the marriage justified an award of attorney's fees to wife), aff'd upon reh'g en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
W. Pettus Gilman v. Judith Cochrane Gilman
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va.App. 557, 574 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 817 (holding that husband’s “clearly superior financial position” and the fact that his infidelity caused the break-up of the marriage justified an award of attorney’s fees to wife), aff'd upon reh’g en banc, 23 Va.App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Diane Harris Ragsdale v. Thomas H. Ragsdale
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 574 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 817 , aff’d upon reh’g en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Poliquin v. Poliquin, 12 Va. App. 676, 681 , 406 S.E.2d 401, 405 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas H. Ragsdale v. Diane Harris Ragsdale
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va.App. 557, 574 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 817 , aff'd upon reh’g en banc, 23 Va.App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Poliquin v. Poliquin, 12 Va.App. 676, 681 , 406 S.E.2d 401, 405 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kelln v. Kelln
(2×)
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va.App. 557, 566 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 813 , aff'd on reh’g en banc, 23 Va.App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996) (stating that one of the elements of a valid gift is the donor’s intent to make a gift).
cited
Cited "see"
Robert C. Lightburn v. Sheila Jones Lightburn
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 565 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 812 , aff'd en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Dorothy M. Moses v. William J. Moses
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557 , 565 n.1, 471 S.E.2d 809 , 813 n.1 (1996), aff'd on reh'g en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
David Alexander Pineda v. Commonwealth of Virginia
We will not search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant’s contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.” Id. at 56 , 415 S.E.2d at 239 ; see also Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 572 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 816 (declining to address an argument that was inadequately developed in appellant’s brief), aff’d en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Roland McKinley Christian, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia
(2×)
Our holding makes it unnecessary to determine whether this statute was violated, and if it was, whether the arrest was nevertheless a valid citizen’s arrest, see Tharp v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 487, 490 , 270 S.E.2d 752, 754 (1980). 2 Even if Christian sought to exclude evidence obtained during his arrest, “Virginia law does not, as a general matter, require suppression of evidence obtained in violation of state law.” Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 , ___ (2008); see also Janis v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 646, 651 , 472 S.E.2d 649, 652 (holding that exclusion is not an appropriate remedy…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carey Dean Roberts v. Debora B. Roberts
Blank v. Blank, 10 Va. App. 1, 9 , 389 S.E.2d 723, 727 (1990); see also Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 570 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 815 , aff’d en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996) (citing Blank).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jonathan Scott Towner v. Paulette Moore Towner
We will not search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant’s contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.” Id. at 56 , 415 S.E.2d at 239 ; see also Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 572 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 816 (declining to address an argument that was inadequately developed in appellant’s brief), aff’d en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Fitzgerald v. Bass, 6 Va. App. 38 , 56 n.7, 366 S.E.2d 615 , 625 n.7 (1988) (en banc) (noting that it is not this Court’s “function to comb through the record . . . in order to ferret-out for ourselves the v…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mullin v. Mullin
We will not search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant’s contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.” Id. at 56 , 415 S.E.2d at 239 ; see also Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va.App. 557, 572 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 816 (declining to address an argument that was inadequately developed in appellant’s brief), aff'd en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Fitzgerald v. Bass, 6 Va.App. 38 , 56 n. 7, 366 S.E.2d 615 , 625 n. 7 (1988) (en banc) (noting that it is not this Court’s “function to comb through the record *307 ... in order to ferret-out for ourselves the …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fatemeh Nasrin Ghods v. John D. Musick
Lightburn v. Lightburn, 22 Va. App. 612, 618 , 472 S.E.2d 281, 284 (1996); see also Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 568 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 813-15 , aff’d on reh’g en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Miller v. Cox
See, e.g., Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va.App. 557, 573 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 816 (noting that the trial court must consider factors other than the parties' standard of living during the marriage, such as the factors that contributed to the dissolution of the marriage and the duration of the marriage), aff'd on reh’g en banc, 23 Va.App. 697, 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Seaton v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See, e.g., Janis v. Commonwealth, 22 Va.App. 646, 651, 472 S.E.2d 649, 652 , aff'd on reh’g en banc, 23 Va.App. 696 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996); see also Vinson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 459, 469, 522 S.E.2d 170, 177 (1999); Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 399, 406-07 , 412 S.E.2d 189, 193 (1991), aff'd per curiam, 244 Va. 218 , 420 S.E.2d 713 (1992); Thompson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 117, 122 , 390 S.E.2d 198, 201 (1990). 8 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Watts v. Watts
See also Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va.App. 557, 565-66 , 471 S.E.2d 809, 813 , aff'd, 23 Va.App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996) (en banc).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Von Raab v. Von Raab
If the party claiming the separate interest in transmuted property proves retraceability, the burden shifts to the other party to prove that the transmutation of the separate property resulted from a “gift.” Lightbum v. Lightbum, 22 Va.App. 612, 617 , 472 S.E.2d 281, 283 (1996) (citing Turner, supra, § 5.18); see also Theismann v. Theismann, 22 *249 Va.App. 557, 565-66, 471 S.E.2d 809, 813 , aff'd en banc, 23 Va.App. 697 , 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kimberly O. JANIS and Thomas Janis, Appellants,
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.
0271952.
Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Dec 31, 1996.
Moon, C.J., and Baker, Benton, Coleman, Willis, Elder, Bray, Fitzpatrick, Annunziata and Overton.
Published
Charles R. Watson, Colonial Heights, for appellants.
Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Before MOON, C.J., and BAKER, BENTON, COLEMAN, WILLIS, ELDER, BRAY, FITZPATRICK, ANNUNZIATA and OVERTON, JJ.
UPON A REHEARING EN BANC
In Janis v. Commonwealth, 22 Va.App. 646, 650-51, 472 S.E.2d 649, 651 (1996), a majority of a panel of the Court reversed and remanded the convictions of Kimberly O. Janis and Thomas Janis. A dissenting opinion was filed in the panel decision. The Commonwealth's petition for rehearing en banc was granted and heard on November 26, 1996. For the reasons stated in the panel's majority opinion, the convictions are reversed, the matters are remanded to the Circuit Court of Dinwiddie County and, accordingly, the stay of this Court's July 9, 1996 mandate is lifted.
Chief Judge Moon, Judges Baker, Coleman and Fitzpatrick would affirm the judgment of the trial court for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of the original panel decision.
This order shall be published and certified to the trial court.