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 4 courts 1955–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jacobs v. Jacobsgreen2 sentences2002Husband argues that the Schacht provision is akin to an escalator clause which is forbidden pursuant to Jacobs v. Jacobs, 219 Va. 993, 995-96 , 254 S.E.2d 56, 58 (1979), and Keyser v. Keyser, 2 Va. App. 459, 461 , 345 S.E.2d 12, 13 (1986) 2 See Complainant’s Mem. in Opp’n. at 3 & Complainant’s Mem. of Law at 5-7. 2002Husband argues that the Schacht provision is akin to an escalator clause which is forbidden pursuant to Jacobs v. Jacobs, 219 Va. 993, 995-96 , 254 S.E.2d 56, 58 (1979), and Keyser v. Keyser, 2 Va. App. 459, 461 , 345 S.E.2d 12, 13 (1986) 2 See Complainant’s Mem. in Opp’n. at 3 & Complainant’s Mem. of Law at 5-7. | 1 | 3 |
Keyser v. Keysergreen2 sentences2002Husband argues that the Schacht provision is akin to an escalator clause which is forbidden pursuant to Jacobs v. Jacobs, 219 Va. 993, 995-96 , 254 S.E.2d 56, 58 (1979), and Keyser v. Keyser, 2 Va. App. 459, 461 , 345 S.E.2d 12, 13 (1986) 2 See Complainant’s Mem. in Opp’n. at 3 & Complainant’s Mem. of Law at 5-7. 2002Husband argues that the Schacht provision is akin to an escalator clause which is forbidden pursuant to Jacobs v. Jacobs, 219 Va. 993, 995-96 , 254 S.E.2d 56, 58 (1979), and Keyser v. Keyser, 2 Va. App. 459, 461 , 345 S.E.2d 12, 13 (1986) 2 See Complainant’s Mem. in Opp’n. at 3 & Complainant’s Mem. of Law at 5-7. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Norfolk v. Virginia Electric & Power Co.
green
2 sentences2018We held that the SCC "had the authority to approve the escalator clause ... and to authorize its insertion in the schedules of rates, charges, rules and regulations of the Company." City of Norfolk , 197 Va. at 519 , 90 S.E.2d at 150 . 2018We held that the SCC "had the authority to approve the escalator clause ... and to authorize its insertion in the schedules of rates, charges, rules and regulations of the Company." City of Norfolk , 197 Va. at 519 , 90 S.E.2d at 150 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Old Dominion Power Co. v. STATE CORP. COM'N
green
2 sentences2018We also addressed an "automatic adjustment clause" in Old Dominion Power Co. v. State Corporation Commission , 228 Va. 528 , 323 S.E.2d 123 (1984). 2018We also addressed an "automatic adjustment clause" in Old Dominion Power Co. v. State Corporation Commission , 228 Va. 528 , 323 S.E.2d 123 (1984). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Shoup v. Shoup
green
2 sentences2002Further, Husband argues that, even if the clause in question could be deemed to be generally acceptable under the analysis in Shoup v. Shoup, 37 Va. App. 240 , 556 S.E.2d 783 (2001), it is not in fact self-executing in that the term “raises and bonuses” is fatally ambiguous. 2002Further, Husband argues that, even if the clause in question could be deemed to be generally acceptable under the analysis in Shoup v. Shoup, 37 Va. App. 240 , 556 S.E.2d 783 (2001), it is not in fact self-executing in that the term “raises and bonuses” is fatally ambiguous. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Robertson v. Robertson
green
1 sentence1983He cites in support thereof Robertson v. Robertson, 215 Va. 425 (1975), and Jacobs v. Jacobs, 219 Va. 993 (1979). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Dan River Mills, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission
green
2 sentences1955In Dan River Mills, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Com mission, 195 Va. 997, 1002 , 81 S. E. (2d) 620 , we said: “It is well settled that where the construction of a statute has been uniform for many years in the administrative practice, and has been acquiesced in by the General Assembly, such construction is entitled to great weight with the courts.” Both in Virginia and in several other States, provisions similar to the escalator clause approved by the Commission have been inserted in the filed schedules of a number of public utilities. 1955In Dan River Mills, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Com mission, 195 Va. 997, 1002 , 81 S. E. (2d) 620 , we said: “It is well settled that where the construction of a statute has been uniform for many years in the administrative practice, and has been acquiesced in by the General Assembly, such construction is entitled to great weight with the courts.” Both in Virginia and in several other States, provisions similar to the escalator clause approved by the Commission have been inserted in the filed schedules of a number of public utilities. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1955Co., 192 Va. 292 , 64 S. E. (2d) 772 ; C. & P. Tel Co. v. Commonwealth, 147 Va. 43 , 136 S. E. 575 . *515 The statutes primarily involved in our determination of whether the Commission has the power to authorize the Company to include the escalator clause in its filed schedules of rates, rules and regulations are § 56-232 through § 56-245, and especially Code, §§ 56-235, 3 56-236, 4 and 56-237. 5 Under Code, § 56-236 every public utility is required to keep on file with the Commission and open to public inspection all schedules of its rates and charges and “as a part of such schedules, copies 1955Co., 192 Va. 292 , 64 S. E. (2d) 772 ; C. & P. Tel Co. v. Commonwealth, 147 Va. 43 , 136 S. E. 575 . *515 The statutes primarily involved in our determination of whether the Commission has the power to authorize the Company to include the escalator clause in its filed schedules of rates, rules and regulations are § 56-232 through § 56-245, and especially Code, §§ 56-235, 3 56-236, 4 and 56-237. 5 Under Code, § 56-236 every public utility is required to keep on file with the Commission and open to public inspection all schedules of its rates and charges and “as a part of such schedules, copies | 1 | 1955–1955 |
City of Norfolk v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences1955Co., 192 Va. 292 , 64 S. E. (2d) 772 ; C. & P. Tel Co. v. Commonwealth, 147 Va. 43 , 136 S. E. 575 . *515 The statutes primarily involved in our determination of whether the Commission has the power to authorize the Company to include the escalator clause in its filed schedules of rates, rules and regulations are § 56-232 through § 56-245, and especially Code, §§ 56-235, 3 56-236, 4 and 56-237. 5 Under Code, § 56-236 every public utility is required to keep on file with the Commission and open to public inspection all schedules of its rates and charges and “as a part of such schedules, copies 1955Co., 192 Va. 292 , 64 S. E. (2d) 772 ; C. & P. Tel Co. v. Commonwealth, 147 Va. 43 , 136 S. E. 575 . *515 The statutes primarily involved in our determination of whether the Commission has the power to authorize the Company to include the escalator clause in its filed schedules of rates, rules and regulations are § 56-232 through § 56-245, and especially Code, §§ 56-235, 3 56-236, 4 and 56-237. 5 Under Code, § 56-236 every public utility is required to keep on file with the Commission and open to public inspection all schedules of its rates and charges and “as a part of such schedules, copies | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.