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 1993–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Glenn v. Haynesgreen2 sentences2016We have held that this policy underlying the requirement of privity "precludes a testamentary beneficiary from maintaining, in her own name, a legal malpractice action against an attorney with whom an attorney-client relationship never existed." Id. at 625, 692 S.E.2d at 244 . 1 "By statute in Virginia, it is provided that: 'Every attorney at law shall be liable to his client for any damage sustained by him by the neglect of his duty as such attorney.' " Glenn v. Haynes , 192 Va. 574 , 580, 66 S.E.2d 509 , 512 (1951) (emphasis added) (quoting former Code § 54-46, predecessor to Code § 54.1-390 2016We have held that this policy underlying the requirement of privity “precludes a testamentary beneficiary from maintaining, in her own name, a legal malpractice action against an attorney with whom an attorney-client relationship never existed.” Id. at 625, 692 S.E.2d at 244 . 1 “By statute in Virginia, it is provided that: ‘Every attorney at law shall be liable to his client for any damage sustained by him by the neglect of his duty as such attorney.’” Glenn v. Haynes, 192 Va. 574, 580 , 66 S.E.2d 509, 512 (1951) (emphasis added) (quoting former Code § 54-46, predecessor to Code § 54.1-3906); | 1 | 1 |
Ripper v. Baingreen2 sentences2016We have held that this policy underlying the requirement of privity "precludes a testamentary beneficiary from maintaining, in her own name, a legal malpractice action against an attorney with whom an attorney-client relationship never existed." Id. at 625, 692 S.E.2d at 244 . 1 "By statute in Virginia, it is provided that: 'Every attorney at law shall be liable to his client for any damage sustained by him by the neglect of his duty as such attorney.' " Glenn v. Haynes , 192 Va. 574 , 580, 66 S.E.2d 509 , 512 (1951) (emphasis added) (quoting former Code § 54-46, predecessor to Code § 54.1-390 2016We have held that this policy underlying the requirement of privity "precludes a testamentary beneficiary from maintaining, in her own name, a legal malpractice action against an attorney with whom an attorney-client relationship never existed." Id. at 625, 692 S.E.2d at 244 . 1 "By statute in Virginia, it is provided that: 'Every attorney at law shall be liable to his client for any damage sustained by him by the neglect of his duty as such attorney.' " Glenn v. Haynes , 192 Va. 574 , 580, 66 S.E.2d 509 , 512 (1951) (emphasis added) (quoting former Code § 54-46, predecessor to Code § 54.1-390 | 1 | 1 |
Kone v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2010Our legal system allows parties in litigation to proceed either pro se or through representation by a duly licensed attorney. [3] As we explained in Kone v. Wilson, 272 Va. 59, 62-63 , 630 S.E.2d 744, 746 (2006), the party with the cause of action may proceed on his own behalf but pleadings signed by a person acting in a representative capacity for the party with the cause of action are a nullity unless such person is licensed to practice law in this Commonwealth. 2010Our legal system allows parties in litigation to proceed either pro se or through representation by a duly licensed attorney. [3] As we explained in Kone v. Wilson, 272 Va. 59, 62-63 , 630 S.E.2d 744, 746 (2006), the party with the cause of action may proceed on his own behalf but pleadings signed by a person acting in a representative capacity for the party with the cause of action are a nullity unless such person is licensed to practice law in this Commonwealth. | 1 | 1 |
Mahoney v. Mahoneygreen2 sentences2005In Mahoney v. Mahoney, 34 Va.App. 63, 67-68 , 537 S.E.2d 626, 628 (2000), we concluded: The policy underlying the requirement of appeal bonds is clear. 2005In Mahoney v. Mahoney, 34 Va.App. 63, 67-68 , 537 S.E.2d 626, 628 (2000), we concluded: The policy underlying the requirement of appeal bonds is clear. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Glenn v. Haynes
green
2 sentences2016We have held that this policy underlying the requirement of privity "precludes a testamentary beneficiary from maintaining, in her own name, a legal malpractice action against an attorney with whom an attorney-client relationship never existed." Id. at 625, 692 S.E.2d at 244 . 1 "By statute in Virginia, it is provided that: 'Every attorney at law shall be liable to his client for any damage sustained by him by the neglect of his duty as such attorney.' " Glenn v. Haynes , 192 Va. 574 , 580, 66 S.E.2d 509 , 512 (1951) (emphasis added) (quoting former Code § 54-46, predecessor to Code § 54.1-390 2016We have held that this policy underlying the requirement of privity “precludes a testamentary beneficiary from maintaining, in her own name, a legal malpractice action against an attorney with whom an attorney-client relationship never existed.” Id. at 625, 692 S.E.2d at 244 . 1 “By statute in Virginia, it is provided that: ‘Every attorney at law shall be liable to his client for any damage sustained by him by the neglect of his duty as such attorney.’” Glenn v. Haynes, 192 Va. 574, 580 , 66 S.E.2d 509, 512 (1951) (emphasis added) (quoting former Code § 54-46, predecessor to Code § 54.1-3906); | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Simpson v. VIRGINIA MUN. LIABILITY POOL
green
1 sentence2016We have held that this policy underlying the requirement of privity “precludes a testamentary beneficiary from maintaining, in her own name, a legal malpractice action against an attorney with whom an attorney-client relationship never existed.” Id. at 625, 692 S.E.2d at 244 . 1 “By statute in Virginia, it is provided that: ‘Every attorney at law shall be liable to his client for any damage sustained by him by the neglect of his duty as such attorney.’” Glenn v. Haynes, 192 Va. 574, 580 , 66 S.E.2d 509, 512 (1951) (emphasis added) (quoting former Code § 54-46, predecessor to Code § 54.1-3906); | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Johnson v. Hart
green
1 sentence2016We have held that this policy underlying the requirement of privity "precludes a testamentary beneficiary from maintaining, in her own name, a legal malpractice action against an attorney with whom an attorney-client relationship never existed." Id. at 625, 692 S.E.2d at 244 . 1 "By statute in Virginia, it is provided that: 'Every attorney at law shall be liable to his client for any damage sustained by him by the neglect of his duty as such attorney.' " Glenn v. Haynes , 192 Va. 574 , 580, 66 S.E.2d 509 , 512 (1951) (emphasis added) (quoting former Code § 54-46, predecessor to Code § 54.1-390 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Yarbrough v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2000First, a “jury should not be permitted to speculate on the potential effect of parole, pardon, or an act of clemency on its sentence because doing so would inevitably prejudice the jury in favor of a harsher sentence than the facts of the case might otherwise warrant.” Yarbrough, 258 Va. at 372 , 519 S.E.2d at 615 . 2000First, a “jury should not be permitted to speculate on the potential effect of parole, pardon, or an act of clemency on its sentence because doing so would inevitably prejudice the jury in favor of a harsher sentence than the facts of the case might otherwise warrant.” Yarbrough, 258 Va. at 372 , 519 S.E.2d at 615 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Speet v. Bacaj
green
2 sentences1993Id. at 294-95 , 377 S.E.2d at 399 ; Willard, 213 Va. at 483 , 193 S.E.2d at 778 . 1993Id. at 294-95 , 377 S.E.2d at 399 ; Willard, 213 Va. at 483 , 193 S.E.2d at 778 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Willard v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
green
2 sentences1993Id. at 294-95 , 377 S.E.2d at 399 ; Willard, 213 Va. at 483 , 193 S.E.2d at 778 . 1993Id. at 294-95 , 377 S.E.2d at 399 ; Willard, 213 Va. at 483 , 193 S.E.2d at 778 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.