Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2022 1 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
McGhee v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2014Compare Simopoulos v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 1059, 1069 , 277 S.E.2d 194, 200 (1981) (holding that a defendant charged with a violation of Virginia’s abortion regulation must “invoke[ ]” the affirmative defense of medical necessity, but that the Commonwealth “has the burden of negating [the defense] beyond a reasonable doubt[]”), aff'd, 462 U.S. 506, 510 , 103 S.Ct. 2532, 2535 , 76 L.Ed.2d 755 (1983), with McGhee *202 v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 561 , 248 S.E.2d 808, 809 (1978) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that she was entitled to a jury instruction stating that the Commonwealth “ha[d] 2014Compare Simopolous v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 1059, 1069 , 277 S.E.2d 194, 200 (1981) (holding that a defendant charged with a violation of Virginia’s abortion regulation must “invoke[]” the affirmative defense of medical necessity, but that the Commonwealth “has the burden of negating [the defense] beyond a reasonable doubt[]”), aff’d, - 12 - 462 U.S. 506, 510 (1983), with McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 561 , 248 S.E.2d 808, 809 (1978) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that she was entitled to a jury instruction stating that the Commonwealth “ha[d] the burden of disproving beyond all re | 3 | 3 |
McCullough v. McCulloughgreen2 sentences2014Compare Simopoulos v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 1059, 1069 , 277 S.E.2d 194, 200 (1981) (holding that a defendant charged with a violation of Virginia’s abortion regulation must “invoke[ ]” the affirmative defense of medical necessity, but that the Commonwealth “has the burden of negating [the defense] beyond a reasonable doubt[]”), aff'd, 462 U.S. 506, 510 , 103 S.Ct. 2532, 2535 , 76 L.Ed.2d 755 (1983), with McGhee *202 v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 561 , 248 S.E.2d 808, 809 (1978) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that she was entitled to a jury instruction stating that the Commonwealth “ha[d] 2014Compare Simopolous v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 1059, 1069 , 277 S.E.2d 194, 200 (1981) (holding that a defendant charged with a violation of Virginia’s abortion regulation must “invoke[]” the affirmative defense of medical necessity, but that the Commonwealth “has the burden of negating [the defense] beyond a reasonable doubt[]”), aff’d, - 12 - 462 U.S. 506, 510 (1983), with McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 561 , 248 S.E.2d 808, 809 (1978) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that she was entitled to a jury instruction stating that the Commonwealth “ha[d] the burden of disproving beyond all re | 3 | 3 |
Simopoulos v. Virginiagreen2 sentences2014Compare Simopoulos v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 1059, 1069 , 277 S.E.2d 194, 200 (1981) (holding that a defendant charged with a violation of Virginia’s abortion regulation must “invoke[ ]” the affirmative defense of medical necessity, but that the Commonwealth “has the burden of negating [the defense] beyond a reasonable doubt[]”), aff'd, 462 U.S. 506, 510 , 103 S.Ct. 2532, 2535 , 76 L.Ed.2d 755 (1983), with McGhee *202 v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 561 , 248 S.E.2d 808, 809 (1978) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that she was entitled to a jury instruction stating that the Commonwealth “ha[d] 2014Compare Simopoulos v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 1059, 1069 , 277 S.E.2d 194, 200 (1981) (holding that a defendant charged with a violation of Virginia’s abortion regulation must “invoke[ ]” the affirmative defense of medical necessity, but that the Commonwealth “has the burden of negating [the defense] beyond a reasonable doubt[]”), aff'd, 462 U.S. 506, 510 , 103 S.Ct. 2532, 2535 , 76 L.Ed.2d 755 (1983), with McGhee *202 v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 561 , 248 S.E.2d 808, 809 (1978) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that she was entitled to a jury instruction stating that the Commonwealth “ha[d] | 3 | 3 |
Simopoulos v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2014Compare Simopoulos v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 1059, 1069 , 277 S.E.2d 194, 200 (1981) (holding that a defendant charged with a violation of Virginia’s abortion regulation must “invoke[ ]” the affirmative defense of medical necessity, but that the Commonwealth “has the burden of negating [the defense] beyond a reasonable doubt[]”), aff'd, 462 U.S. 506, 510 , 103 S.Ct. 2532, 2535 , 76 L.Ed.2d 755 (1983), with McGhee *202 v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 561 , 248 S.E.2d 808, 809 (1978) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that she was entitled to a jury instruction stating that the Commonwealth “ha[d] 2014Compare Simopoulos v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 1059, 1069 , 277 S.E.2d 194, 200 (1981) (holding that a defendant charged with a violation of Virginia’s abortion regulation must “invoke[ ]” the affirmative defense of medical necessity, but that the Commonwealth “has the burden of negating [the defense] beyond a reasonable doubt[]”), aff'd, 462 U.S. 506, 510 , 103 S.Ct. 2532, 2535 , 76 L.Ed.2d 755 (1983), with McGhee *202 v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 561 , 248 S.E.2d 808, 809 (1978) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that she was entitled to a jury instruction stating that the Commonwealth “ha[d] | 3 | 3 |
Bishop v. Com.green1 sentence2022Bishop v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 9, 13 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2011In order to obtain a conviction against a defendant charged with a violation of Code § 18.2-61, therefore, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim; (2) that it was against her will and without her consent; and (3) that it was by force, threat or intimidation. [8] Gonzales v. Commonwealth, 45 Va.App. 375, 382 , 611 S.E.2d 616, 619 (2005); Code § 18.2-61(A). 2011In order to obtain a conviction against a defendant charged with a violation of Code § 18.2-61, therefore, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim; (2) that it was against her will and without her consent; and (3) that it was by force, threat or intimidation. [8] Gonzales v. Commonwealth, 45 Va.App. 375, 382 , 611 S.E.2d 616, 619 (2005); Code § 18.2-61(A). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.