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 1988–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
County of Campbell v. Howardgreen2 sentences2005It was for this reason that Appleton sought discovery of all client matters that he worked on but which remained at Bondurant after his departure. 2 Appleton summarizes his argument as follows: “Where, as here, Plaintiff Appleton’s employment at Bondurant & Appleton, P.C., induced him to deliver services for which his contract failed to fix a definite compensation, the cases on which he worked but the fee was generated subsequent to his departure, the Court should employ principles of quantum meruit in order to achieve fairness and make Mr. Appleton whole.” Appleton asserts that such a quantum 2005It was for this reason that Appleton sought discovery of all client matters that he worked on but which remained at Bondurant after his departure. 2 Appleton summarizes his argument as follows: “Where, as here, Plaintiff Appleton’s employment at Bondurant & Appleton, P.C., induced him to deliver services for which his contract failed to fix a definite compensation, the cases on which he worked but the fee was generated subsequent to his departure, the Court should employ principles of quantum meruit in order to achieve fairness and make Mr. Appleton whole.” Appleton asserts that such a quantum | 1 | 2 |
Lawson v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2025Like this Court found in Lawson v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 549, 558 (2010), we find that Howard “was justifiably detained by the police for the purpose of awaiting the arrival of the canine unit to investigate the police’s reasonable suspicion that illegal narcotics were located in his vehicle.” Accordingly, we find no error with the circuit court’s denial of Howard’s motion to suppress. -5- CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Chafin v. Chafingreen1 sentence2022“A case becomes moot ‘when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’” Ingram v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. App. 14, 21 (2013) (quoting Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013)). | 1 | 1 |
William Scott Ingram v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2022“A case becomes moot ‘when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’” Ingram v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. App. 14, 21 (2013) (quoting Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013)). | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Colegreen2 sentences2005It was for this reason that Appleton sought discovery of all client matters that he worked on but which remained at Bondurant after his departure. 2 Appleton summarizes his argument as follows: “Where, as here, Plaintiff Appleton’s employment at Bondurant & Appleton, P.C., induced him to deliver services for which his contract failed to fix a definite compensation, the cases on which he worked but the fee was generated subsequent to his departure, the Court should employ principles of quantum meruit in order to achieve fairness and make Mr. Appleton whole.” Appleton asserts that such a quantum 2005It was for this reason that Appleton sought discovery of all client matters that he worked on but which remained at Bondurant after his departure. 2 Appleton summarizes his argument as follows: “Where, as here, Plaintiff Appleton’s employment at Bondurant & Appleton, P.C., induced him to deliver services for which his contract failed to fix a definite compensation, the cases on which he worked but the fee was generated subsequent to his departure, the Court should employ principles of quantum meruit in order to achieve fairness and make Mr. Appleton whole.” Appleton asserts that such a quantum | 1 | 1 |
Estes v. Texasgreen2 sentences1988See Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. at 543 , 85 S.Ct. at 1633 . 1988See Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. at 543 , 85 S.Ct. at 1633 . | 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.