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 1967–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Alvarez-Machaingreen1 sentence2026The doctrine of specialty, “prohibit[s] the prosecution of [a] defendant . . . for a crime other than the crime for which he had been extradited.” United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 659 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Austin v. Shoney's, Inc.green2 sentences2002In doing so, the trial court violated the principle we articulated in a similar situation in Austin v. Shoney’s, Inc., 254 Va. 134, 138 , 486 S.E.2d 285, 287 (1997), by assessing the weight and credibility of the evidence and rejecting inferences favorable to the plaintiffs which did not defy logic and common sense. 2002In doing so, the trial court violated the principle we articulated in a similar situation in Austin v. Shoney’s, Inc., 254 Va. 134, 138 , 486 S.E.2d 285, 287 (1997), by assessing the weight and credibility of the evidence and rejecting inferences favorable to the plaintiffs which did not defy logic and common sense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arizona v. Gant
green
2 sentences2010A. Motion to Suppress—Arizona v. Gant On appeal, Armstead argues the trial court violated the rule recently announced in Arizona v. Gant, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), when it refused to grant *576 the motion to suppress. 2010A. Motion to Suppress—Arizona v. Gant On appeal, Armstead argues the trial court violated the rule recently announced in Arizona v. Gant, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), when it refused to grant *576 the motion to suppress. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Lintz
green
1 sentence1998Similarly, in Cottrell, 12 Va.App. at 574 , 405 S.E.2d at 440 , we held that even if the defendant did not violate a specific provision of suspension by testifying untruthfully, the court could revoke his suspension for “perpetrating a fraud on the court.” We explained, more generally, “[d]eceit, untruthfulness and deception at the time of the sentencing are always grounds for revoking a suspended sentence.” Id. at 573-74 , 405 S.E.2d at 440 -41 (citing Lintz, 509 P.2d at 15 ) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
COTTERELL v. Com.
green
2 sentences1998Similarly, in Cottrell, 12 Va.App. at 574 , 405 S.E.2d at 440 , we held that even if the defendant did not violate a specific provision of suspension by testifying untruthfully, the court could revoke his suspension for “perpetrating a fraud on the court.” We explained, more generally, “[d]eceit, untruthfulness and deception at the time of the sentencing are always grounds for revoking a suspended sentence.” Id. at 573-74 , 405 S.E.2d at 440 -41 (citing Lintz, 509 P.2d at 15 ) (emphasis added). 1998Similarly, in Cottrell, 12 Va.App. at 574 , 405 S.E.2d at 440 , we held that even if the defendant did not violate a specific provision of suspension by testifying untruthfully, the court could revoke his suspension for “perpetrating a fraud on the court.” We explained, more generally, “[d]eceit, untruthfulness and deception at the time of the sentencing are always grounds for revoking a suspended sentence.” Id. at 573-74 , 405 S.E.2d at 440 -41 (citing Lintz, 509 P.2d at 15 ) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Bryce v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1998In *43 Bryce, 13 Va.App. at 590-91 , 414 S.E.2d at 417-18 , we held that the defendant’s fraud on the court violated the requirement of good behavior. 1998In *43 Bryce, 13 Va.App. at 590-91 , 414 S.E.2d at 417-18 , we held that the defendant’s fraud on the court violated the requirement of good behavior. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Cottrell v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1998Similarly, in Cottrell, 12 Va.App. at 574 , 405 S.E.2d at 440 , we held that even if the defendant did not violate a specific provision of suspension by testifying untruthfully, the court could revoke his suspension for “perpetrating a fraud on the court.” We explained, more generally, “[d]eceit, untruthfulness and deception at the time of the sentencing are always grounds for revoking a suspended sentence.” Id. at 573-74 , 405 S.E.2d at 440 -41 (citing Lintz, 509 P.2d at 15 ) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Cooper v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1967He claimed this violated his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, but the court rejected his claim and held “that the privilege protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature, and that the withdrawal of blood and use of the analysis in question in this case did not involve compulsion to these ends.” Defendant next contends that his statements, “My family will be heartbroken” and “Why are you punishing me?”, made to the arresting officer after defendant was 1967He claimed this violated his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, but the court rejected his claim and held “that the privilege protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature, and that the withdrawal of blood and use of the analysis in question in this case did not involve compulsion to these ends.” Defendant next contends that his statements, “My family will be heartbroken” and “Why are you punishing me?”, made to the arresting officer after defendant was | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.