Magco of Maryland, Inc. v. Barr, 545 S.E.2d 548 (Va. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Magco of Maryland, Inc. v. Barr, 545 S.E.2d 548 (Va. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Darlin Yulitza Rivas Martinez v. Arlington County Department of Human Services (vactapp, 2023-07-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Darlin Yulitza Rivas Martinez v. Arlington County Department of Human Services
Va. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Notwithstanding mother’s challenge to Code § 16.1-283(E)(iv), mother does not dispute that the circuit court properly entered an order for the involuntary termination of mother’s residual parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). -8- v. Stokes, 287 Va. 446 , 452-53 (2014) (finding that a party must assign error to each articulated basis for a ruling, and the appellant could not prevail where he had not challenged one of three grounds for the decision); Magco of Md., Inc. v. Barr, 262 Va. 1, 1 (2001) (deciding that where there is an independent basis for the judgment that is not challe…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Travis Wilton Radford v. Bedford County Department of Social Services
Va. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7-8 (2005) (finding that because the appellant had not challenged the court’s decision to terminate her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), the Court did not need to address her sufficiency argument regarding termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2)). “[I]n ‘situations in which there [are] one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoti…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joseph L. Parrish, Jr. s/k/a Joseph Lee Parrish, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
See also Davis v. Johnson, 274 Va. 649, 655 , 652 S.E.2d 114, 117-18 (2007) (in appeal of a habeas corpus proceeding where appellant failed to challenge all of the lower court’s independent grounds for its ruling, Court could not consider the claim of error on appeal); Magco of Maryland, Inc. v. Barr, 262 Va. 1, 1 , 545 S.E.2d 548, 548 (2001) (finding that where “there is an independent basis for the judgment of [the lower court] . . . that is not challenged on appeal, this Court cannot reach the merits of those errors assigned by the appellant”).
discussed Cited "see" Sheets v. Castle (2×)
Va. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Magco of Maryland, Inc. v. Barr, 262 Va. 1, 1 , 545 S.E.2d 548, 548 (2001); see also Parker-Smith v. Sto Corp., 262 Va. 432, 440-41 , 551 S.E.2d 615, 620 (2001).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ayanni Grace Seay v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Ferguson v. Stokes, 287 Va. 446 (2014) (finding that on appellant challenging only two of three independent grounds for trial court’s ruling cannot prevail as third ground is unchallenged); see also Magco of Md. v. Barr, 262 Va. 1 (2001) (noting when there is an independent basis for the lower court’s judgment that is not challenged on appeal, the appellate court will not address the issue). -4- ANALYSIS I.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Magco of Maryland, Inc., Appellant, Against John Mills Barr, Commissioner of Labor and Industry, Appellee
Record 002146; Court of Appeals 2377-99-4.
Supreme Court of Virginia.
May 11, 2001.
545 S.E.2d 548
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

The Court of Appeals determined not only that the knowledge of the appellant’s supervisor regarding hazards on the work site may be imputed to the appellant, but also that the senior officers of the appellant knew or should have known of those hazards. Magco of Maryland, Inc. v. Barr, 33 Va. App. 78, 85, 531 S.E.2d 614, 617-18 (2000). The appellant did not assign error to the finding that the appellant’s senior officers knew or should have known of the hazards. Consequently, since there is an independent basis for the judgment of the Court of Appeals that is not challenged on appeal, this Court cannot reach the merits of those errors assigned by the appellant. Rash v. Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co., 251 Va. 281, 286-87, 467 S.E.2d 791, 794-95 (1996). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is final in relation to the issue of knowledge by the appellant’s senior officers and bars any appellate relief on the issues raised before this Court. United Leasing Corp. v. Thrift Ins. Corp., 247 Va. 299, 308, 440 S.E.2d 902, 907 (1994).

For these reasons, this Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

[*2] This order shall be certified to the Court of Appeals and to the Circuit Court of Arlington County and shall be published in the Virginia Reports.

A Copy, Teste: David B. Beach, Clerk