detailed analysis in Virginia

1996The trial court was not required to accept his valuation and could “weigh the testimony of all the ... experts.” Bell Atlantic, 16 Va.App. at 746 , *367 433 S.E.2d at 33 .

1996The trial court was not required to accept his valuation and could “weigh the testimony of all the ... experts.” Bell Atlantic, 16 Va.App. at 746 , *367 433 S.E.2d at 33 .

2026I would urge counsel to review Reaves v. Tucker, 67 Va. App. 719, 736 (2017) and Rahnema v. Rahnema, 47 Va. App. 645, 658 (2006).

2025Cf. id. (finding error was not harmless when the erroneous testimony was more detailed than the other standard-of-care experts’ testimonies).

2023Because granted Instruction No. 16 fairly and accurately informed the jury of a pedestrian’s duties when crossing the street, the law in this case, including the duties of a pedestrian, was “clearly stated and . . . the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.” Dorman, 292 Va. at 125 .

2013In Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth the three-part test which is utilized: (1) the non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must com

2011Although the legislature listed possible monetary sanctions that may be ordered, that list is not exclusive to “an appropriate sanction.” Based upon the Supreme Court’s approval and imprimatur to the less restrictive sanction of prefiling requirements, see id., and the trial court’s detailed analysis of Switzer’s history of filing motions, pleadings, documents, and praecipes for over a decade, most of which were either frivolous or attempts to harass the parties and the court, and Switzer’s continuous attempts to relitigate final judgments that are res judicata, the trial court did not abuse i

2010Our decision in Pugh, 42 Va.App. 297 , 591 S.E.2d 706 , relied upon by claimant and the dissenting commissioner, does not require the reversal of the commission's decision to docket employer’s application for hearing.

2010Our decision in Pugh, 42 Va.App. 297 , 591 S.E.2d 706 , relied upon by claimant and the dissenting commissioner, does not require the reversal of the commission's decision to docket employer’s application for hearing.

2007The Supreme Court of Virginia in Lambert v. City of Norfolk, 108 Va. 259 , 61 S.E. 776 (1908), gave a detailed analysis of the legislative history surrounding the 1902 Constitutional amendment which added the “or damaged” language to Article I, § 11.

2007The Supreme Court of Virginia in Lambert v. City of Norfolk, 108 Va. 259 , 61 S.E. 776 (1908), gave a detailed analysis of the legislative history surrounding the 1902 Constitutional amendment which added the “or damaged” language to Article I, § 11.

2005Not long after its decision in Haskins , the Supreme Court of Virginia provided a more detailed analysis of the finality of an order sustaining a demurrer but not dismissing the underlying claims in Bibber v. McCreary, 194 Va. 394 , 73 S.E.2d 382 (1952).

2005Not long after its decision in Haskins , the Supreme Court of Virginia provided a more detailed analysis of the finality of an order sustaining a demurrer but not dismissing the underlying claims in Bibber v. McCreary, 194 Va. 394 , 73 S.E.2d 382 (1952).

1999In Bradner v. Mitchell, 234 Va. 483 , 362 S.E.2d 718 (1987), the Court set out a detailed analysis in determining whether a jury verdict was inadequate.

1999In Bradner v. Mitchell, 234 Va. 483 , 362 S.E.2d 718 (1987), the Court set out a detailed analysis in determining whether a jury verdict was inadequate.

1997The Court believes that the appropriate procedure to be followed and the one that will be followed here and which is inferentially recognized in the Supreme Court’s opinion in Conway v. American National Bank, 146 Va. 357 (1926), is for the Plaintiff to now submit a detailed claim for his attorneys’ fees with all supporting documentation and receipts together with affidavits of expert witnesses attesting to the reasonableness of the charges.

1992Licenses § 13(b) at 495). 1 In Estes , the Virginia Supreme Court engages in a detailed analysis of legislative history to find that the Richmond City Council did not intend to include “common carriers of freight” within a section taxing those involved in the “Moving and Hauling Business.” See, id. at 186-89 , 68 S.E.2d at 113-14 .

1992In Duggin v. Adams, 234 Va. 221 (1987), at pages 226 and 227, the Virginia Supreme Court outlines the requirements for proof of a prima facie case of tortious interference with a contract terminable at will.

1991Koontz, C.J., and Moon, J., concurred. 1 In Rock , the court stated specifically: “This case does not involve the admissibility of testimony of previously hypnotized witnesses other than criminal defendants and we express no opinion on that issue.” Rock, 483 U.S. at 58 n.15. 2 For a detailed analysis of the problems associated with posthypnotic recall.

1983In McFadden v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 103 , 300 S.E.2d 924 (1983), decided today, we make a detailed analysis of Edwards .

1983In McFadden v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 103 , 300 S.E.2d 924 (1983), decided today, we make a detailed analysis of Edwards .

1981Under the California statute, such jurors were subject to challenge for cause. 168 Cal. Rptr. at 170 , 616 P.2d at 1343 .

1981Under the California statute, such jurors were subject to challenge for cause. 168 Cal. Rptr. at 170 , 616 P.2d at 1343 .