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 1982–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Higgs v. Kirkbridegreen1 sentence2026The “purpose and 4 The Town’s seventh assignment of error is similar and, per the Town’s brief, is addressed in tandem with this assignment of error. -6- intent of the ordinance should be considered but the ordinance should not be extended by interpretation or construction beyond its intended purpose.” Higgs v. Kirkbride, 258 Va. 567, 573 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
Hampton Roads Sanitation District v. McDonnellgreen1 sentence1994Statute of Limitations In Hampton Roads Sanitation District v. McDonnell, 234 Va. 235, 238-39 (1987) (sewage discharge case) the Virginia Supreme Court indicated that a land owner may enforce his right to compensation under Article 1, Section 11, of the Constitution of Virginia in a common law action for injury to property. | 1 | 1 |
Nixon v. Fitzgeraldgreen1 sentence1992Even though the district court’s interlocutory order striking the Town’s defense of absolute immunity was immediately appealable as an exception to the final judgment rule, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 743 (1982), an interlocutory order is by definition not a final judgment on the merits. | 1 | 1 |
Abney v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1992Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 658-59 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Industrial Development Authority v. La France Cleaners & Laundry Corp.green1 sentence1990See I.D.A. v. LaFrance Cleaners, 216 Va. 277 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1982The Court said the doctrine means that “when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.” 397 U.S. at 443 . 3 See also Lee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 1108, 1110 , 254 S.E.2d 126, 127 (1979), and C. 1982The Court said the doctrine means that “when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.” 397 U.S. at 443 . 3 See also Lee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 1108, 1110 , 254 S.E.2d 126, 127 (1979), and 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ashe v. Swenson
green
2 sentences1982The Court said the doctrine means that “when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.” 397 U.S. at 443 . 3 See also Lee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 1108, 1110 , 254 S.E.2d 126, 127 (1979), and C. 1982After argument, the court sustained the Town’s motion, ruling that, because “the issue [had] been determined” in the earlier proceeding, the Temple was estopped from presenting evidence or argument on the question. 2 In Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), a habeas corpus case, the Supreme Court noted that the doctrine of collateral estoppel first developed in civil litigation, but later was made applicable to criminal cases as part of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.