judicially created doctrine in Virginia

2017"A judicially-created doctrine, res judicata rests upon considerations of public policy which favor certainty in establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties." Bates v. Devers , 214 Va. 667 , 670, 202 S.E.2d 917 , 920 (1974) (internal citations omitted).

2017"A judicially-created doctrine, res judicata rests upon considerations of public policy which favor certainty in establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties." Bates v. Devers , 214 Va. 667 , 670, 202 S.E.2d 917 , 920 (1974) (internal citations omitted).

2012“Res judicata is a judicially created doctrine founded upon the ‘considerations of public policy which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.’” Neff v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 13, 17-18 , 569 S.E.2d 72, 74-75 (2002) (quoting Bates v. Devers, 214 Va. 667, 670 , 202 S.E.2d 917, 920 (1974)).

2012“Res judicata is a judicially created doctrine founded upon the ‘considerations of public policy which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.’” Neff v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 13, 17-18 , 569 S.E.2d 72, 74-75 (2002) (quoting Bates v. Devers, 214 Va. 667, 670 , 202 S.E.2d 917, 920 (1974)).

2022Co. v. Craft, 63 Va. App. 502, 514 (2014). “[R]es judicata is a judicially created doctrine resting upon public policy considerations which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.” Id. at 514-15 (quoting K & L Trucking Co. v. Thurber, 1 Va. App. 213, 219 (1985)). “[T]he doctrine is firmly established in our jurisprudence and should be maintained where applicable.” Thurber, 1 Va. App. at 219 .

2022Co. v. Craft, 63 Va. App. 502, 514 (2014). “[R]es judicata is a judicially created doctrine resting upon public policy considerations which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.” Id. at 514-15 (quoting K & L Trucking Co. v. Thurber, 1 Va. App. 213, 219 (1985)). “[T]he doctrine is firmly established in our jurisprudence and should be maintained where applicable.” Thurber, 1 Va. App. at 219 .

2014We also “give great weight to the commission’s construction of the Act.” Id. at 155 , 583 S.E.2d at 68-69 (citation omitted). “[R]es judicata is a judicially created doctrine resting upon public policy considerations which favor certainty in *515 the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.” K & L Trucking Co. v. Thurber, 1 Va.App. 213, 219 , 337 S.E.2d 299, 302 (1985). [T]he principles of res judicata can be comprised of two distinct concepts: “issue preclusion” and “claim preclusion.” See Brock v. Voith Siemens Hydro Power Gene

2014We also “give great weight to the commission’s construction of the Act.” Id. at 155 , 583 S.E.2d at 68-69 (citation omitted). “[R]es judicata is a judicially created doctrine resting upon public policy considerations which favor certainty in *515 the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.” K & L Trucking Co. v. Thurber, 1 Va.App. 213, 219 , 337 S.E.2d 299, 302 (1985). [T]he principles of res judicata can be comprised of two distinct concepts: “issue preclusion” and “claim preclusion.” See Brock v. Voith Siemens Hydro Power Gene

2015Appellant argues that this is a significant distinction because if the juvenile court “denied [appellee] all of the relief she requested vis-à-vis custody and visitation, there is nothing to which res judicata can attach, the legal doctrine which lies at the heart of . . . [appellee’s] argument before the [circuit court].” Res judicata is a judicially-created doctrine that rests upon considerations of public policy which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948), demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent the harassment of p

1974A judicially-created doctrine, res judicata rests upon considerations of public policy which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948), demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent the harassment of parties.

2022Co. v. Craft, 63 Va. App. 502, 514 (2014). “[R]es judicata is a judicially created doctrine resting upon public policy considerations which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.” Id. at 514-15 (quoting K & L Trucking Co. v. Thurber, 1 Va. App. 213, 219 (1985)). “[T]he doctrine is firmly established in our jurisprudence and should be maintained where applicable.” Thurber, 1 Va. App. at 219 .

2022Co. v. Craft, 63 Va. App. 502, 514 (2014). “[R]es judicata is a judicially created doctrine resting upon public policy considerations which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.” Id. at 514-15 (quoting K & L Trucking Co. v. Thurber, 1 Va. App. 213, 219 (1985)). “[T]he doctrine is firmly established in our jurisprudence and should be maintained where applicable.” Thurber, 1 Va. App. at 219 .

2018Gray v. Johnson, 7 Va. App. 614, 617 , 376 S.E.2d 787, 788 (1989) (quoting Bates v. Devers, 214 Va. 667, 670 , 202 S.E.2d 917, 920 (1974)).

2018Gray v. Johnson, 7 Va. App. 614, 617 , 376 S.E.2d 787, 788 (1989) (quoting Bates v. Devers, 214 Va. 667, 670 , 202 S.E.2d 917, 920 (1974)).

2015Appellant argues that this is a significant distinction because if the juvenile court “denied [appellee] all of the relief she requested vis-à-vis custody and visitation, there is nothing to which res judicata can attach, the legal doctrine which lies at the heart of . . . [appellee’s] argument before the [circuit court].” Res judicata is a judicially-created doctrine that rests upon considerations of public policy which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948), demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent the harassment of p

2015Appellant argues that this is a significant distinction because if the juvenile court “denied [appellee] all of the relief she requested vis-à-vis custody and visitation, there is nothing to which res judicata can attach, the legal doctrine which lies at the heart of . . . [appellee’s] argument before the [circuit court].” Res judicata is a judicially-created doctrine that rests upon considerations of public policy which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948), demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent the harassment of p

2008“The doctrine is firmly established in our jurisprudence and should be maintained where applicable.” Ward v. Charlton, 177 Va. 101, 115 , 12 S.E.2d 791, 796 (1941). -7- 41 (1986)).

2008“The doctrine is firmly established in our jurisprudence and should be maintained where applicable.” Ward v. Charlton, 177 Va. 101, 115 , 12 S.E.2d 791, 796 (1941). -7- 41 (1986)).

2026See, e.g., Collins v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 390, 402-03 (2007).

2024The judicially created rule “prevents evidence obtained in violation of the [F]ourth [A]mendment from being used against an accused.” Redmond v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 254, 261 (2010) (quoting Commonwealth v. Ealy, 12 Va. App. 744, 750 (1991)).

2024The judicially created rule “prevents evidence obtained in violation of the [F]ourth [A]mendment from being used against an accused.” Redmond v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 254, 261 (2010) (quoting Commonwealth v. Ealy, 12 Va. App. 744, 750 (1991)).

2015In the context of a petition to amend custody and visitation, “[t]he purpose of the changed circumstances requirement is to avoid the bar on relitigation that would otherwise be imposed by res judicata.” Parish v. Spaulding, 26 Va. App. 566, 573 , 496 S.E.2d 91, 94 (1998); see also Code § 20-108 (authorizing the courts to maintain jurisdiction over custody and visitation issues).

2015In the context of a petition to amend custody and visitation, “[t]he purpose of the changed circumstances requirement is to avoid the bar on relitigation that would otherwise be imposed by res judicata.” Parish v. Spaulding, 26 Va. App. 566, 573 , 496 S.E.2d 91, 94 (1998); see also Code § 20-108 (authorizing the courts to maintain jurisdiction over custody and visitation issues).

2014“Issue preclusion bars ‘successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment,’ even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim.” Id. (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748-49 [ 121 S.Ct. 1808, 1814 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 ] (2001)).

2014“Issue preclusion bars ‘successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment,’ even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim.” Id. (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748-49 [ 121 S.Ct. 1808, 1814 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 ] (2001)).

2014We also “give great weight to the commission’s construction of the Act.” Id. at 155 , 583 S.E.2d at 68-69 (citation omitted). “[R]es judicata is a judicially created doctrine resting upon public policy considerations which favor certainty in *515 the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.” K & L Trucking Co. v. Thurber, 1 Va.App. 213, 219 , 337 S.E.2d 299, 302 (1985). [T]he principles of res judicata can be comprised of two distinct concepts: “issue preclusion” and “claim preclusion.” See Brock v. Voith Siemens Hydro Power Gene

2014We also “give great weight to the commission’s construction of the Act.” Id. at 155 , 583 S.E.2d at 68-69 (citation omitted). “[R]es judicata is a judicially created doctrine resting upon public policy considerations which favor certainty in *515 the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.” K & L Trucking Co. v. Thurber, 1 Va.App. 213, 219 , 337 S.E.2d 299, 302 (1985). [T]he principles of res judicata can be comprised of two distinct concepts: “issue preclusion” and “claim preclusion.” See Brock v. Voith Siemens Hydro Power Gene

2004CDM Enterprises, Inc. v. Manufactured Housing Board, 32 Va.App. 702, 709 , 530 S.E.2d 441, 444 (2000) (citations omitted). “[F]our preclusionary effects [are] embraced by the doctrine of res judicata: (1) res judicata-bar, (2) merger, (3) direct estoppel, and (4) collateral estoppel.” Dotson v. Harman, 232 Va. 402, 405 , 350 S.E.2d 642, 644 (1986).

2004CDM Enterprises, Inc. v. Manufactured Housing Board, 32 Va.App. 702, 709 , 530 S.E.2d 441, 444 (2000) (citations omitted). “[F]our preclusionary effects [are] embraced by the doctrine of res judicata: (1) res judicata-bar, (2) merger, (3) direct estoppel, and (4) collateral estoppel.” Dotson v. Harman, 232 Va. 402, 405 , 350 S.E.2d 642, 644 (1986).

2004CDM Enterprises, Inc. v. Manufactured Housing Board, 32 Va.App. 702, 709 , 530 S.E.2d 441, 444 (2000) (citations omitted). “[F]our preclusionary effects [are] embraced by the doctrine of res judicata: (1) res judicata-bar, (2) merger, (3) direct estoppel, and (4) collateral estoppel.” Dotson v. Harman, 232 Va. 402, 405 , 350 S.E.2d 642, 644 (1986).

2004CDM Enterprises, Inc. v. Manufactured Housing Board, 32 Va.App. 702, 709 , 530 S.E.2d 441, 444 (2000) (citations omitted). “[F]our preclusionary effects [are] embraced by the doctrine of res judicata: (1) res judicata-bar, (2) merger, (3) direct estoppel, and (4) collateral estoppel.” Dotson v. Harman, 232 Va. 402, 405 , 350 S.E.2d 642, 644 (1986).

2004See also Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 409 , 114 S.Ct. 958, 964 , 127 L.Ed.2d 252 (1994) (noting that “ ‘res judicata is an affirmative defense in both criminal and civil cases’ ”). “ ‘Res judicata is a judicially created doctrine founded upon the considerations of public policy which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.’ ” Res judicata, which literally means a “matter adjudged,” precludes relitigation of a cause of action once a final determination on the merits has been reached by a court of competent

2004See also Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 409 , 114 S.Ct. 958, 964 , 127 L.Ed.2d 252 (1994) (noting that “ ‘res judicata is an affirmative defense in both criminal and civil cases’ ”). “ ‘Res judicata is a judicially created doctrine founded upon the considerations of public policy which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.’ ” Res judicata, which literally means a “matter adjudged,” precludes relitigation of a cause of action once a final determination on the merits has been reached by a court of competent

2000Colonial argues on appeal that under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, the finding of the general district court and its dismissal of Linda Reed’s action barred any recovery through the appeal pending in the circuit court. *709 Res judicata and collateral estoppel, though similar, are distinct legal doctrines. “ ‘Res judicata is a judicially created doctrine founded upon the considerations of public policy which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.’” Highsmith v. Commonwealth, 25 Va

2000Colonial argues on appeal that under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, the finding of the general district court and its dismissal of Linda Reed’s action barred any recovery through the appeal pending in the circuit court. *709 Res judicata and collateral estoppel, though similar, are distinct legal doctrines. “ ‘Res judicata is a judicially created doctrine founded upon the considerations of public policy which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.’” Highsmith v. Commonwealth, 25 Va

2000The doctrine prevents “relitigation of the same cause of action, or any part thereof which could have been litigated, between the same parties and their privies.” Bill Greever Corp. v. Tazewell Nat’l Bank, 256 Va. 250, 254 , 504 S.E.2d 854, 856 (1998) (quoting Bates v. Devers, 214 Va. 667, 670-71 , 202 S.E.2d 917, 920-21 (1974)).

2000The doctrine prevents “relitigation of the same cause of action, or any part thereof which could have been litigated, between the same parties and their privies.” Bill Greever Corp. v. Tazewell Nat’l Bank, 256 Va. 250, 254 , 504 S.E.2d 854, 856 (1998) (quoting Bates v. Devers, 214 Va. 667, 670-71 , 202 S.E.2d 917, 920-21 (1974)).

1995See Pembroke Limestone Works v. Commonwealth, 145 Va. 644, 651-52 (1926).