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 3 courts 1834–2016 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.green1 sentence2016Servs., 500 U.S. 90, 96 (1991), courts “must compare the derivative claims asserted in a complaint against the specific demands a plaintiff has made prior to filing suit,” LeCann, 2011 NCBC 29, at *24 . | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Condragreen1 sentence2016In other words, to satisfy the demand requirement, the allegations in the pre-suit written demand must be the “same allegations [that] form the basis of [the] plaintiff’s derivative claims.” Green v. Condra, 2009 NCBC 21, at *116 (N.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Willliams v. Stevens
green
2 sentences2016Williams, 86 Va. Cir. at 390 . 2016Id. at 390 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Lecann v. Cobham
green
1 sentence2016Servs., 500 U.S. 90, 96 (1991), courts “must compare the derivative claims asserted in a complaint against the specific demands a plaintiff has made prior to filing suit,” LeCann, 2011 NCBC 29, at *24 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Liggett v. Roanoke Water Co.
green
2 sentences2005Liggett v. Roanoke Water Co., 126 Va. 22 , 101 S.E. 55 (1919). 2005Liggett v. Roanoke Water Co., 126 Va. 22 , 101 S.E. 55 (1919). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Cromwell v. County of Sac
green
1 sentence1992“A judgment by default only admits for the purposes of the action the legality of the demand or claim in suit [and] does not make the allegation of the declaration or complaint evidence in an action upon a different claim.” Cromwell, 94 U.S. at 356 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Barker v. Wingo
green
1 sentence1978Observing that “presuming waiver of a fundamental right from inaction, is inconsistent with this Court’s pronouncements on waiver of constitutional rights”, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. at 525 , the Barker court expressly rejected the demand-waiver doctrine: “We reject, therefore, the rule that a defendant who fails to demand a speedy trial forever waives his right. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Rhodes v. Cousins
neutral
1 sentence1834Rhodes v. Cousins, 6 Rand. 188 . | 1 | 1834–1834 |
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.