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 1 courts 2000–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smolka v. SECOND DIST. COMMITTEE, ETC.green2 sentences2001Comm'n, 224 Va. 161, 165 , 295 S.E.2d 267, 269 (1982), and concedes the authority of both the Board and the Commissioner of 3 The English Bill of Rights provided in pertinent part "excessive Bail ought not to be required, nor excessive Fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted." An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and Settling the Succession of the Crown, 1 W. & M. 2, ch. 2 (1689) (Eng.). - 14 - the Department to regulate the company. 4 Furthermore, Abateco cites no authority for a construction of the Excessive Fines clause that prohibits the imposition o 2001Comm'n, 224 Va. 161, 165 , 295 S.E.2d 267, 269 (1982), and concedes the authority of both the Board and the Commissioner of 3 The English Bill of Rights provided in pertinent part "excessive Bail ought not to be required, nor excessive Fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted." An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and Settling the Succession of the Crown, 1 W. & M. 2, ch. 2 (1689) (Eng.). - 14 - the Department to regulate the company. 4 Furthermore, Abateco cites no authority for a construction of the Excessive Fines clause that prohibits the imposition o | 3 | 3 |
Department of Professional & Occupational Regulation v. Abateco Services, Inc.green1 sentence2024Cf. Hart v. Commonwealth, 131 Va. 726, 743 (1921) (noting that the two provisions are “practically in the same language”); Dunaway v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 281, 311 (2008) (evaluating appellant’s claims under the federal constitution when appellant failed to show “that Virginia’s Constitution affords more relief than the United States Constitution”); Dep’t of Pro. & Occupational Regul., Bd. for Asbestos & Lead v. Abateco Servs., Inc., 33 Va. App. 473, 483 (2000) (adopting the federal “gross disproportionality” test for claims under the excessive fines clause of Article I, Section 9 of the | 1 | 1 |
Hart v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2024Cf. Hart v. Commonwealth, 131 Va. 726, 743 (1921) (noting that the two provisions are “practically in the same language”); Dunaway v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 281, 311 (2008) (evaluating appellant’s claims under the federal constitution when appellant failed to show “that Virginia’s Constitution affords more relief than the United States Constitution”); Dep’t of Pro. & Occupational Regul., Bd. for Asbestos & Lead v. Abateco Servs., Inc., 33 Va. App. 473, 483 (2000) (adopting the federal “gross disproportionality” test for claims under the excessive fines clause of Article I, Section 9 of the | 1 | 1 |
Cole v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2024Cole v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 642, 654 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
Dunaway v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2024Cf. Hart v. Commonwealth, 131 Va. 726, 743 (1921) (noting that the two provisions are “practically in the same language”); Dunaway v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 281, 311 (2008) (evaluating appellant’s claims under the federal constitution when appellant failed to show “that Virginia’s Constitution affords more relief than the United States Constitution”); Dep’t of Pro. & Occupational Regul., Bd. for Asbestos & Lead v. Abateco Servs., Inc., 33 Va. App. 473, 483 (2000) (adopting the federal “gross disproportionality” test for claims under the excessive fines clause of Article I, Section 9 of the | 1 | 1 |
Austin v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2020See Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 609-10 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.