green
Positive treatment
8.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 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 "see"
Sylvia D. Ross v. Donald M. Ross
See Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 573 (rejecting wife’s argument - 17 - that her spousal support award was inadequate even though it would not allow her to maintain the standard of living she had enjoyed during the marriage, where the court had considered all of the statutory factors), aff’d on reh’g en banc, 23 Va. App. 697 (1996).
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"
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"
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).
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).
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"
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"
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).
cited
Cited "see"
Lightburn v. Lightburn
The trial court, affirmed by a majority of the panel, was affirmed upon hearing en hone for the masons stated In the majority panel opinion; see Theismann v. Theismann, 23 Va. App. 697 (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."
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).
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…
Joseph R. THEISMANN, Appellant,
v.
Jeanne C. THEISMANN, Appellee.
v.
Jeanne C. THEISMANN, Appellee.
1092954.
Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Dec 31, 1996.
Moon, C.J., and Baker, Benton, Coleman, Willis, Elder, Bray, Fitzpatrick, Annunziata and Overton.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Michael A. Ward (Gannon, Cottrell & Ward, P.C., on briefs), Alexandria, for appellant.
Brian D. West (Mark A. Barondess; Erika B. Schiller; Sandground, Barondess, West & New, P.C., on brief), Vienna, for appellee.
Before MOON, C.J., and BAKER, BENTON, COLEMAN, WILLIS, ELDER, BRAY, FITZPATRICK, ANNUNZIATA and OVERTON, JJ.
UPON REHEARING EN BANC
By opinion dated June 18, 1996, a majority of a panel of this Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va.App. 557, 471 S.E.2d 809 (1996). Upon motion of Joseph R. Theismann, we granted a rehearing en banc. Upon such rehearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed for those reasons set forth in the panel's majority opinion, and, accordingly, the stay of this Court's June 18, 1996 mandate is lifted.
Judges Benton, Coleman, Elder and Annunziata would reverse the judgment of the trial court for those reasons set forth in the panel's dissenting opinion. See id. at 574, 471 S.E.2d at 817 (Annunziata, J., concurring in part, and dissenting in part).
This order shall be published and certified to the trial court.