burden error (Virginia) · Go Syfert
← Virginia issues

burden error in Virginia

5 Virginia opinions name it 4 courts 1983–2006 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Sandstrom v. Montanagreen
scotus · 1979 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006Similarly, although appellant’s Instruction M cited Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 514-24 (1979) (holding that due process forbids the use of a presumption that relieves the prosecution of proving an element of the crime charged), neither the instruction itself nor appellant’s discussion of that instruction alerted - 12 - the trial court to the existence of a federal constitutional problem or the specific constitutional claim raised on appeal.

11
Sentry Building Systems, Inc. v. Onslow County Board of Educationgreen
ncctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995“It is a well-established rule that under normal circumstances, a trial court is under no obligation to amend or correct an instruction that contains a misstatement of law.” Morse v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 627, 636 , 448 S.E.2d 145, 151 (1994). 3 At oral argument, the defendants, while admitting that the proffered finding instruction failed to include a statement of the burden, argued that including the burden was not necessary since it had already been given in other instructions.

11
In re Estate of Willardgreen
moctapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
2 sentences

1991Even more to the point was a Missouri court in Matter of Estate of Willard, 674 S.W.2d 139 (Mo. App. 1984), which held that contrary to there being a burden on the claimant to prove the nonexistence of closer heirs, the burden is upon the state to show that closer heirs do exist: The state [is] held to this burden because of the presumption of law, “ ... raised in favor of the existence of some person who is capable of inheriting the estate of the decedent ...

1991This presumption ... is so strong, that it can only be overcome by positive proof of the want of persons capable of taking the estate under the laws of descent and distribution . . . .” We find that claimants should not be held to this burden of proof. 674 S.W.2d at 140 (emphasis added).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Jenkins v. Anderson green
scotus · 1980
2 sentences

1998Id.

1998Id.

11998–1998
Commonwealth v. Coolidge green
va · 1989
2 sentences

1995Coolidge, 237 Va. at 625 , 379 S.E.2d at 341 , n.* (noting that the failure to state the burden was error).

1995Coolidge, 237 Va. at 625 , 379 S.E.2d at 341 , n.* (noting that the failure to state the burden was error).

11995–1995
Morse v. Commonwealth green
vactapp · 1994
1 sentence

1995“It is a well-established rule that under normal circumstances, a trial court is under no obligation to amend or correct an instruction that contains a misstatement of law.” Morse v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 627, 636 , 448 S.E.2d 145, 151 (1994). 3 At oral argument, the defendants, while admitting that the proffered finding instruction failed to include a statement of the burden, argued that including the burden was not necessary since it had already been given in other instructions.

11995–1995
Wilkerson v. Wilkerson green
va · 1973
1 sentence

1983Walter v. Brooks, 203 Va. 417 (1962), was quoted with respect to rules appertaining in those situations, namely, that “the rights of the parent are, if at all possible, to be respected,” and “the best interests of the child are paramount,” and “[t]his is true whether the rights of the parent are sought to be denied because it is claimed that they have been voluntarily relinquished or because the parent is unfit,” and whichever be the case, “the burden is upon the one seeking to sever the parent’s right to show such relinquishment or unfitness by clear, cogent and convincing proof.” The opinion

11983–1983
Walker v. Brooks green
va · 1962
1 sentence

1983Walter v. Brooks, 203 Va. 417 (1962), was quoted with respect to rules appertaining in those situations, namely, that “the rights of the parent are, if at all possible, to be respected,” and “the best interests of the child are paramount,” and “[t]his is true whether the rights of the parent are sought to be denied because it is claimed that they have been voluntarily relinquished or because the parent is unfit,” and whichever be the case, “the burden is upon the one seeking to sever the parent’s right to show such relinquishment or unfitness by clear, cogent and convincing proof.” The opinion

11983–1983

Where else courts name it

TX 138 (1919–2026) CA 133 (1907–2026) FL 61 (1955–2026) IL 53 (1915–2025) NY 46 (1923–2024) PA 42 (1908–2024) WA 41 (1967–2026) LA 34 (1959–2024) MA 32 (1964–2026) OH 27 (1984–2026) CT 27 (1990–2025) IA 24 (1937–2026) MD 20 (1964–2019) WI 18 (1952–2025) MS 16 (1945–2019) CO 16 (1972–2026) MO 16 (1930–2019) IN 15 (1974–2017) GA 15 (1949–2026) NJ 14 (1914–2021) WY 13 (1977–2022) MI 13 (1916–2025) OK 13 (1933–2020) MN 12 (1893–2014) AL 10 (1926–2005) DC 10 (1976–2018) AZ 10 (1982–2024) OR 9 (1990–2026) KS 9 (1933–2021) VT 7 (1980–2013) MT 6 (1923–2016) ND 6 (2001–2022) ME 6 (2016–2023) NH 5 (1976–2017) ID 5 (2014–2022) NC 5 (1940–2012) DE 5 (1990–2026) TN 5 (1958–2016) VA 5 (1983–2006) UT 4 (1999–2015) WV 4 (1994–2026) SC 4 (1922–2020) NV 4 (1993–2016) NM 4 (2014–2018) KY 3 (2005–2025) SD 3 (1919–1999) AR 3 (1960–1987) NE 3 (1961–2021) AK 3 (1973–2024) VI 2 (2012–2014) HI 2 (1910–2018)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check