19 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1901–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fadness v. Fadnessgreen2 sentences2016See Fadness, 52 Va. App. at 851 , 667 S.E.2d at 866 (“If the parties believed that the circuit court erred, it was their duty to present that error to us with legal authority to support their contention.”). 2016See Fadness, 52 Va. App. at 851 , 667 S.E.2d at 866 (“If the parties believed that the circuit court erred, it was their duty to present that error to us with legal authority to support their contention.”). | 2 | 2 |
Ohree v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2013Accordingly, “there is no ruling for us to review on appeal.” Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308 , 494 S.E.2d 484, 489 (1998). 2013Accordingly, “there is no ruling for us to review on appeal.” Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308 , 494 S.E.2d 484, 489 (1998). | 2 | 2 |
Powell v. McCormackgreen2 sentences2011See United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (holding that “mootness has two aspects: ‘when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome’” (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969))). -2- BACKGROUND We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. 2011See United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (holding that “mootness has two aspects: ‘when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome’” (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969))). -2- BACKGROUND We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. | 2 | 2 |
United States Parole Commission v. Geraghtygreen2 sentences2011See United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (holding that “mootness has two aspects: ‘when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome’” (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969))). -2- BACKGROUND We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. 2011See United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (holding that “mootness has two aspects: ‘when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome’” (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969))). -2- BACKGROUND We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. | 2 | 2 |
Braulio Marcelo Castillo, s/k/a Braulio Marcello Castillo v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2026In other words, Virginia follows an “inclusionary approach” by “admitting [other-crimes] 5 Sorto’s brief includes a fourth assignment of error alleging that the trial court erred by admitting his Amazon records showing that he purchased the camera found in M.L.S.’s bedroom; however, his brief contains no argument pertaining to that assignment of error and instead expressly states that the matter is “waived.” Thus, we do not consider it. 6 Rule of Evidence 2:413 provides, “In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of a felony sexual offense involving a child victim, evidence of the d | 1 | 1 |
Jay v. Com.green2 sentences2016See Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520 , 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 (2008) ("The Court of Appeals should, however, consider whether any failure to strictly adhere to the requirements of Rule 5A:20(e) is insignificant, thus allowing the court to address the merits of a question presented.”). 2016See Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520 , 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 (2008) ("The Court of Appeals should, however, consider whether any failure to strictly adhere to the requirements of Rule 5A:20(e) is insignificant, thus allowing the court to address the merits of a question presented.”). | 1 | 1 |
Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc.green2 sentences2014As the commission did not make such a finding, this issue is not properly before us on appeal. “‘We cannot consider alleged error on a ruling the commission never made.’” Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc., 58 Va. App. 244, 254 , 708 S.E.2d 429, 435 (2011) (quoting Montalbano v. Richmond Ford, LLC, 57 Va. App. 235 , 249 n.7, 701 S.E.2d 72 , 79 n.7 (2010)). 2014As the commission did not make such a finding, this issue is not properly before us on appeal. “‘We cannot consider alleged error on a ruling the commission never made.’” Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc., 58 Va. App. 244, 254 , 708 S.E.2d 429, 435 (2011) (quoting Montalbano v. Richmond Ford, LLC, 57 Va. App. 235 , 249 n.7, 701 S.E.2d 72 , 79 n.7 (2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Muhammad v. Com.green1 sentence2013See Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451, 478 , 619 S.E.2d 16, 31 (2005) (citation omitted) (“Failure to adequately brief an assignment of error is considered a waiver.”). | 1 | 1 |
Muhammad v. Com.green1 sentence2013See Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451, 478 , 619 S.E.2d 16, 31 (2005) (citation omitted) (“Failure to adequately brief an assignment of error is considered a waiver.”). | 1 | 1 |
Parks v. Parksgreen2 sentences2013See Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833, 851 , 667 S.E.2d 857, 866 (2008) (“If the parties believed that the circuit court erred, it was their duty to -9- present that error to us with legal authority to support their contention.”); Parks v. Parks, 52 Va. App. 663, 664 , 666 S.E.2d 547, 548 (2008). 2013See Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833, 851 , 667 S.E.2d 857, 866 (2008) (“If the parties believed that the circuit court erred, it was their duty to -9- present that error to us with legal authority to support their contention.”); Parks v. Parks, 52 Va. App. 663, 664 , 666 S.E.2d 547, 548 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Prospect Development Co. v. Bershader
green
2 sentences2017The trial court relied on Prospect Development Co. v. Bershader , 258 Va. 75 , 515 S.E.2d 291 (1999), where we announced an exception to the rule that absent a statute or contract to the contrary, a court may not award attorney's fees to the prevailing party. 2017The trial court relied on Prospect Development Co. v. Bershader , 258 Va. 75 , 515 S.E.2d 291 (1999), where we announced an exception to the rule that absent a statute or contract to the contrary, a court may not award attorney's fees to the prevailing party. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Montalbano v. Richmond Ford, LLC
green
2 sentences2014As the commission did not make such a finding, this issue is not properly before us on appeal. “‘We cannot consider alleged error on a ruling the commission never made.’” Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc., 58 Va. App. 244, 254 , 708 S.E.2d 429, 435 (2011) (quoting Montalbano v. Richmond Ford, LLC, 57 Va. App. 235 , 249 n.7, 701 S.E.2d 72 , 79 n.7 (2010)). 2014As the commission did not make such a finding, this issue is not properly before us on appeal. “‘We cannot consider alleged error on a ruling the commission never made.’” Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc., 58 Va. App. 244, 254 , 708 S.E.2d 429, 435 (2011) (quoting Montalbano v. Richmond Ford, LLC, 57 Va. App. 235 , 249 n.7, 701 S.E.2d 72 , 79 n.7 (2010)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Rutledge v. Rutledge
green
1 sentence2013Wife argues that the trial court erred by denying (1) “an award of attorney’s fees and costs to Wife in reliance on Va. Code § 20-109 and Rutledge v. Rutledge, 45 Va. App. 56 (2005)”; (2) “an award of attorney’s fees and costs to Wife pursuant to Va. Code § 20-99”; (3) “an award of attorney’s fees and costs to Wife pursuant to other applicable law”; and (4) wife’s motion for reconsideration.1 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Wife did not include any argument in her briefs regarding the fourth assignment of error; therefore, the issue is waived. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
John Crane, Inc. v. Jones
green
2 sentences2008Analysis "Generally, we review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence using an abuse of discretion standard and, on appeal, will not disturb a trial court's decision to admit evidence absent a finding of abuse of that discretion." John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 274 Va. 581 , 590, 650 S.E.2d 851 , 855 (2007). 2008Analysis "Generally, we review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence using an abuse of discretion standard and, on appeal, will not disturb a trial court's decision to admit evidence absent a finding of abuse of that discretion." John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 274 Va. 581 , 590, 650 S.E.2d 851 , 855 (2007). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Stump v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1936Stump v. Commonwealth, 137 Va. 804 , 119 S. E. 72 .” The fourth assignment of error relates to the granting of instruction “C” over the objection of the accused. 1936Stump v. Commonwealth, 137 Va. 804 , 119 S. E. 72 .” The fourth assignment of error relates to the granting of instruction “C” over the objection of the accused. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Bare v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1923The accused, relying on Bare v. Commonwealth, 122 Va. 783 , 94 S. E. 168 , claims that the outhouse in question was within the curtilage, and hence the storing of liquor therein was at his bona fide home. 1923The accused, relying on Bare v. Commonwealth, 122 Va. 783 , 94 S. E. 168 , claims that the outhouse in question was within the curtilage, and hence the storing of liquor therein was at his bona fide home. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Pine v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1922This assignment was fully considered by a full bench in Pine v. Commonwealth, 121 Va. 812 , 93 S. E. 652 , and a unanimous conclusion reached up holding the validity of that section of the act. 1922This assignment was fully considered by a full bench in Pine v. Commonwealth, 121 Va. 812 , 93 S. E. 652 , and a unanimous conclusion reached up holding the validity of that section of the act. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Horton v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1921Many precedents to the above effect might be cited, but see Horton’s Case, 99 Va. 853 , 38 S. E. 184 . [8, 9] The fourth assignment of error is to instruction No. 2, given at the instance of the Commonwealth. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Norfolk & Portsmouth Traction Co. v. Ellington's Administrator
neutral
2 sentences1910The third instruction is as follows: “The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence that on the night of the collision between an electric train of the Washington, Alexandria and Mount Vernon Railway and a light engine of the Southern Railway at the intersection of Cameron and Henry streets in Alexandria city, Va., the defendant, the said Washington, Alexandria and Mount Vernon Railway Company failed to bring its said colliding train to a full stop at least twenty feet before getting to the said crossing of the said Southern railroad and the said Washington, Alexandria an 1910The third instruction is as follows: “The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence that on the night of the collision between an electric train of the Washington, Alexandria and Mount Vernon Railway and a light engine of the Southern Railway at the intersection of Cameron and Henry streets in Alexandria city, Va., the defendant, the said Washington, Alexandria and Mount Vernon Railway Company failed to bring its said colliding train to a full stop at least twenty feet before getting to the said crossing of the said Southern railroad and the said Washington, Alexandria an | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Tidball v. Shenandoah National Bank
neutral
1 sentence1901Tidball v. Bank, supra. The fourth assignment of error relates to a note of $640.00 made by Engleby & Brother, and endorsed by Thomas Engleby. | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.