de novo standard in Virginia

2022Rather, based on counsel for mother’s initial representation, the circuit court continued to proceed with the only matter it thought was before it, the appeal of the JDR order denying mother’s motion for supervised visitation. 5 We acknowledge that during the de novo hearing in circuit court, “the burden of proof remain[ed] upon the party with whom it rested in the juvenile court.” Box v. Talley, 1 Va. App. 289, 292 (1986).

2017“A de novo hearing means a trial anew, with the burden of proof remaining upon the party with whom it rested in the juvenile court.” Parish v. Spaulding, 20 Va. App. 130, 132 , 455 S.E.2d 728, 729 (1995) (quoting Box v. Talley, 1 Va. App. 289, 292 , 338 S.E.2d 349, 351 (1986)).

2026“This same de novo standard of review applies to determining the proper definition of a particular word in a statute.” Id. (quoting Miller v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 527, 537 (2015)). “[S]topping a motor vehicle and detaining the operator constitute[s] a ‘seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 234 , 246 (2021) (first alteration in original) (quoting Lowe v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 346, 349 (1985)).

2026This same de novo standard of review applies to determining the proper definition of a particular word in a statute.” Miller v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 527, 537 (2015) (citation omitted).

2022Servs., 29 Va. App. at 406 (“A de novo hearing means a trial anew, with the burden of proof remaining upon the party with whom it rested in the juvenile court.” (quoting Parish v. Spaulding, 20 Va. App. 130, 132 (1995))). 10 My concurring colleague would go further and hold that the circuit court failed to conduct the requisite dispositional hearing.

2022Servs., 29 Va. App. at 406 (“A de novo hearing means a trial anew, with the burden of proof remaining upon the party with whom it rested in the juvenile court.” (quoting Parish v. Spaulding, 20 Va. App. 130, 132 (1995))). 10 My concurring colleague would go further and hold that the circuit court failed to conduct the requisite dispositional hearing.

1995“A de novo hearing means a trial anew, with the burden of proof remaining upon the party with whom it rested in the juvenile court.” Box v. Talley, 1 Va.App. 289, 292 , 338 S.E.2d 349, 351 (1986) (emphasis added). ‘“[A]n appeal to the circuit court ... annuls the judgment of the [juvenile court] as completely as if there had been no previous trial.’ ” Cox v. Cox, 16 Va.App. 146, 148 , 428 S.E.2d 515, 516 (1993) (quoting Walker v. Department of Public Welfare, 223 Va. 557, 563 , 290 S.E.2d 887, 890 (1982)). “[B]y statute the ‘trial de novo in the circuit court grants to a litigant every advanta

1995“A de novo hearing means a trial anew, with the burden of proof remaining upon the party with whom it rested in the juvenile court.” Box v. Talley, 1 Va.App. 289, 292 , 338 S.E.2d 349, 351 (1986) (emphasis added). ‘“[A]n appeal to the circuit court ... annuls the judgment of the [juvenile court] as completely as if there had been no previous trial.’ ” Cox v. Cox, 16 Va.App. 146, 148 , 428 S.E.2d 515, 516 (1993) (quoting Walker v. Department of Public Welfare, 223 Va. 557, 563 , 290 S.E.2d 887, 890 (1982)). “[B]y statute the ‘trial de novo in the circuit court grants to a litigant every advanta

2025ANALYSIS Camping World asks this Court to reverse the Commission’s conclusion that Ocasio suffered a compensable injury from horseplay and find instead that it was a personal assault unrelated to Ocasio’s employment.4 4 Specifically, Camping World argues that the Commission erred “by not applying the holdings in Hilton v. Martin, 275 Va. 176 (2008); Butler v. So.

2019See also Bernard v. Carlson Companies-TGIF, 60 Va. App. 400, 412-13 (2012) (“When we are presented with ‘essentially undisputed facts,’ as we are here, a de novo standard of appellate review governs the question whether the injury satisfies the ‘actual risk’ test.” (quoting Hilton v. Martin, 275 Va. 176, 180 (2008))).

2023“We review questions of law, and mixed questions of law and fact, utilizing a de novo standard of review.” Dunaway v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 281, 299 (2008) (quoting Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451, 479 (2005)).

2022“We review questions of law, and mixed questions of law and fact, utilizing a de novo standard of review.” Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451, 479 (2005).

2018But that assertion merely assumes its conclusion-i.e., that the tenants' counterclaim arises out of the landlord's appeal of the GDC's adverse judgment on the landlord's claim. 20 See also, e.g. , Code §§ 16.1-109(A) (authorizing the circuit court to require the "appellant" to give "new or additional security" to protect an appellee's judgment in the GDC), 16.1-111 (permitting the "party taking the appeal" to "direct" the appeal to any circuit court with jurisdiction to review it), 16.1-112 (referring to the "appellant" and "appellee" in describing the notification requirements for a docketed

2018But that assertion merely assumes its conclusion-i.e., that the tenants' counterclaim arises out of the landlord's appeal of the GDC's adverse judgment on the landlord's claim. 20 See also, e.g. , Code §§ 16.1-109(A) (authorizing the circuit court to require the "appellant" to give "new or additional security" to protect an appellee's judgment in the GDC), 16.1-111 (permitting the "party taking the appeal" to "direct" the appeal to any circuit court with jurisdiction to review it), 16.1-112 (referring to the "appellant" and "appellee" in describing the notification requirements for a docketed

2023But “[w]hether a defendant’s due process rights are violated by the admission of evidence is a question of law, to which we apply a de novo standard of review.” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 266 , 274 (2018) (quoting Henderson, 285 Va. at 329). “[I]n conducting our de novo analysis, this Court ‘is bound by the trial court’s findings of historical fact unless “plainly wrong” or without evidence to support them.’” Cody v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 638 , 656 (2018) (quoting McGee v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 193, 198 (1997) (en banc)).

2022However, “[w]hether a defendant’s due process rights are violated by the admission of evidence is a question of law, to which we apply a de novo standard of review.” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 266 , 274 (2018) (quoting Henderson v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 318 , 329 (2013)). “[I]n conducting our de novo analysis, this Court ‘is bound by the trial court’s findings of historical fact unless “plainly wrong” or without evidence to support them.’” Cody v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 638 , 656 (2018) (quoting McGee v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 193, 198 (1997) (en banc)). 2.

2006“On appeal, we apply a de novo standard of review in determining whether a person has been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Harris v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 28, 32 , 581 S.E.2d 206, 209 (2003) (citing McCain v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 483, 489 , 545 S.E.2d 541, 545 (2001)).

2006“On appeal, we apply a de novo standard of review in determining whether a person has been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Harris v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 28, 32 , 581 S.E.2d 206, 209 (2003) (citing McCain v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 483, 489 , 545 S.E.2d 541, 545 (2001)).

2026Therefore, although we consider the facts in the light most favorable to Pendrak, we apply a de novo standard of review to the trial court’s application of “defined legal standards.” Hayes v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 647, 652 (1999).

2025We grant all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it and apply a de novo standard of review to the “trial court’s application of defined legal standards such as probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion.” Hayes v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 647, 652 (1999).

2025Holland v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. App. 445, 451 (2013).

2018Holland v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. App. 445, 451 , 749 S.E.2d 206, 209 (2013).

2025ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review “We apply a de novo standard of review when ‘[t]here are no disputed facts relevant to the plea in bar and it presents a pure question of law.’” Smith v. McLaughlin, 289 Va. 241 , 251 (2015) (quoting David White Crane Serv. v. Howell, 282 Va. 323, 327 (2011)). “[W]here no evidence is taken in support of a plea in bar, the trial court, and the appellate court upon review, consider solely the pleadings in resolving the issue presented.

2025ANALYSIS “We apply a de novo standard of review when ‘[t]here are no disputed facts relevant to the plea in bar and it presents a pure question of law.’” Smith v. McLaughlin, 289 Va. 241 , 251 (2015) (quoting David White Crane Serv. v. Howell, 282 Va. 323, 327 (2011)).

2025“However, whether a defendant’s due process rights are violated by the admission of evidence is a question of law, to which we apply a de novo standard of review.” Henderson v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 318 , 329 (2013) (quoting Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Smit, 279 Va. 327, 335 (2010)).

2015A higher standard is applied, however, in the context of alleged violations of constitutional rights. “[WJhether a defendant’s due process rights are violated by the admission of evidence is a question of law, to which we apply a de novo standard of review.” Id. (citing Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Smit, 279 Va. 327, 335 , 689 S.E.2d 679, 684 (2010)).

2025Presbytery v. Shalom Presbyterian Church of Wash., Inc., 84 Va. App. 1 , 19 (2025) (“We also ‘employ the de novo standard of review when analyzing a host of issues, such as statutory interpretation, the plain meaning of contracts, [and] resolution of constitutional questions[.]’” (alterations in original) (quoting Robert & Bertha Robinson Fam., LLC v. Allen, 295 Va. 130, 148 (2018))). “[W]here an agreement is complete on its face, is plain and unambiguous in its terms, the court is not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument itself.” Berry v. Klinger, 225 Va. 201, 208 (1983)

2020While we apply a de novo standard of review to the circuit court’s application of the law, “[w]e are bound by the [circuit] court’s factual findings unless those findings are ‘plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence.’” Ward v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 211, 218 (2007) (quoting Pyramid Dev., L.L.C. v. D&J Assocs., 262 Va. 750, 753 (2001)).

2023See Davis v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 446, 455 (2011). -2- On June 18, 2019, he was indicted for the misdemeanor interfering with the police charge.

2014See Davis v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 446, 455 , 703 S.E.2d 259, 263 (2011).

2016Harris v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 409, 413 , 650 S.E.2d 89, 91 (2007). -2- Code § 19.2-303 grants a court the authority to “suspend imposition of sentence or suspend the sentence in whole or part and . . . place the defendant on probation . . . as a condition of a suspended sentence.” Further, when the court suspends the imposition of the sentence, or suspends a portion of the sentence, it has the authority to set a time period for which the sentence is not imposed.

2016Harris v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 409, 413 , 650 S.E.2d 89, 91 (2007). -2- Code § 19.2-303 grants a court the authority to “suspend imposition of sentence or suspend the sentence in whole or part and . . . place the defendant on probation . . . as a condition of a suspended sentence.” Further, when the court suspends the imposition of the sentence, or suspends a portion of the sentence, it has the authority to set a time period for which the sentence is not imposed.

2011See Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 699 .

2011See Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 699 .

2018We apply a de novo standard of review in determining “whether a person has been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Harris v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 28, 32 , 581 S.E.2d 206, 209 (2003).

2018We apply a de novo standard of review in determining “whether a person has been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Harris v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 28, 32 , 581 S.E.2d 206, 209 (2003).

2014Further, Code § 16.1-296 makes clear that the circuit court must conduct a de novo hearing in termination of parental rights cases on appeal from the juvenile and domestic relations district courts. “[S]uch a trial de novo in the circuit court grants to a litigant every advantage which would have been his had the case been tried originally in such court.” Peple v. Peple, 5 Va. App. 414, 419 , 364 S.E.2d 232, 236 (1988).

2014Further, Code § 16.1-296 makes clear that the circuit court must conduct a de novo hearing in termination of parental rights cases on appeal from the juvenile and domestic relations district courts. “[S]uch a trial de novo in the circuit court grants to a litigant every advantage which would have been his had the case been tried originally in such court.” Peple v. Peple, 5 Va. App. 414, 419 , 364 S.E.2d 232, 236 (1988).

2015A. Standard Of Review "The question of whether [a valid] contract exists is a pure question of law, to which we apply a de novo standard of review." Mission Residential, LLC v. Triple Net Props., LLC, 275 Va. 157, 161 , 654 S.E.2d 888, 890 (2008).

2015A. Standard Of Review "The question of whether [a valid] contract exists is a pure question of law, to which we apply a de novo standard of review." Mission Residential, LLC v. Triple Net Props., LLC, 275 Va. 157, 161 , 654 S.E.2d 888, 890 (2008).

2025“This same de novo standard of review applies to determining the proper definition of a particular word in a statute.” Id. (quoting Jones v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 304, 307 (2017)).

2025“This same de novo standard of review applies to determining the proper definition of a particular word in a statute.” Id. (quoting Jones v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 304, 307 (2017)).

2025We also “employ the de novo standard of review when analyzing a host of issues, such as statutory interpretation, the plain meaning of contracts, [and] resolution of constitutional questions[.]” Robert & Bertha Robinson Family, LLC v. Allen, 295 Va. 130, 148 (2018).

2025Presbytery v. Shalom Presbyterian Church of Wash., Inc., 84 Va. App. 1 , 19 (2025) (“We also ‘employ the de novo standard of review when analyzing a host of issues, such as statutory interpretation, the plain meaning of contracts, [and] resolution of constitutional questions[.]’” (alterations in original) (quoting Robert & Bertha Robinson Fam., LLC v. Allen, 295 Va. 130, 148 (2018))). “[W]here an agreement is complete on its face, is plain and unambiguous in its terms, the court is not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument itself.” Berry v. Klinger, 225 Va. 201, 208 (1983)

2025Hence, -7- as this poses a question of law, “[w]e examine the circuit court’s decision to sustain [a] demurrer under a de novo standard of review.” Wilburn v. Mangano, 299 Va. 348 , 353 (2020) (second alteration in original) (quoting Mark Five Constr., Inc. v. Castle Contractors, 274 Va. 283, 287 (2007)).

2023“We examine the circuit court’s decision to sustain [a] demurrer under a de novo standard of review because it is a pure question of law.” Wilburn v. Mangano, 299 Va. 348 , 353 (2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Mark Five Constr., Inc. v. Castle Contractors, 274 Va. 283, 287 (2007)).

2024Standard of Review To begin, we necessarily apply well-established principles of statutory interpretation. “[T]he [trial] court’s interpretation and application of [Code § 15.2-1812] presents a question of law that we will consider under a de novo standard of review.” See Commonwealth v. Garrett, 276 Va. 590, 599 (2008); see also Walker v. Va. Dep’t of Corrections, 79 Va. App. 415 , 420 (2024).

2011Commonwealth v. Garrett, 276 Va. 590, 599 , 667 S.E.2d 739, 744 (2008).

2023“We review questions of law, and mixed questions of law and fact, utilizing a de novo standard of review.” Dunaway v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 281, 299 (2008) (quoting Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451, 479 (2005)).

2022“We review questions of law, and mixed questions of law and -5- fact, utilizing a de novo standard of review.” Parish v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 324, 329 (2010) (quoting Dunaway v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 281, 299 (2008)).

2025“On appeal, we review a trial court’s interpretation of a lease under a de novo standard.” Id. (quoting Levisa Coal, 276 Va. at 57 ).

2025“On appeal, we review a trial court’s interpretation of a lease under a de novo standard.” Id. (quoting Levisa Coal, 276 Va. at 57 ).

2018"In contrast to the de novo standard of review, the abuse of discretion standard requires a reviewing court to show enough deference to a primary decisionmaker's judgment that the court does not reverse merely because it would have come to a different result in the first instance." Lawlor v. Commonwealth , 285 Va. 187 , 212, 738 S.E.2d 847 , 861 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[W]hen a decision is discretionary.... the court has a range of choice, and ... its decision will not be disturbed as long as it stays within that range and is not influenced by any mistake of la

2018"In contrast to the de novo standard of review, the abuse of discretion standard requires a reviewing court to show enough deference to a primary decisionmaker's judgment that the court does not reverse merely because it would have come to a different result in the first instance." Lawlor v. Commonwealth , 285 Va. 187 , 212, 738 S.E.2d 847 , 861 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[W]hen a decision is discretionary.... the court has a range of choice, and ... its decision will not be disturbed as long as it stays within that range and is not influenced by any mistake of la