Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant, emailed to you with a link to the setup page and always available from the account icon.
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.
18 Virginia opinions name it 8 courts 1992–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mutual Funding, Inc. v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2015See supra. However, “a conspiracy claim, made under Virginia Code §§ 18.2-499 and 18.2-500, is inadequate unless it sets forth some core facts to support the claim.” Mutual Funding, Inc. v. Collins, 62 Va. Cir. 34, 39 (Fairfax Cnty. 2012). 2005Mutual Funding, Inc. v. Collins, 62 Va. Cir. 34, 39 (Spotsylvania County 2003). | 2 | 2 |
Almy v. Grishamgreen2 sentences2025Id. at 81 . 2010Almy v. Grisham, 273 Va. 68, 81 , 639 S.E.2d 182, 189 (2007). | 1 | 2 |
Nedrich v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2015The intra-corporate immunity doctrine provides that, “there must be two persons to comprise a conspiracy, and a corporation, like an individual, cannot conspire with itself.” Nedrich v. Jones, 245 Va. 465, 473 (1993). 2013The intra-corporate immunity doctrine provides that, “there must be two persons to comprise a conspiracy, and a corporation, like an individual, cannot conspire with itself.” Nedrich v. Jones, 245 Va. 465, 473 , 429 S.E.2d 201 (quoting Bowman v. State Bank, 229 Va. 534, 541 , 331 S.E.2d 797 (1985)). | 1 | 2 |
Bowman v. State Bank of Keysvillegreen2 sentences2013The intra-corporate immunity doctrine provides that, “there must be two persons to comprise a conspiracy, and a corporation, like an individual, cannot conspire with itself.” Nedrich v. Jones, 245 Va. 465, 473 , 429 S.E.2d 201 (quoting Bowman v. State Bank, 229 Va. 534, 541 , 331 S.E.2d 797 (1985)). 2013The intra-corporate immunity doctrine provides that, “there must be two persons to comprise a conspiracy, and a corporation, like an individual, cannot conspire with itself.” Nedrich v. Jones, 245 Va. 465, 473 , 429 S.E.2d 201 (quoting Bowman v. State Bank, 229 Va. 534, 541 , 331 S.E.2d 797 (1985)). | 1 | 2 |
Charles E. Brauer Co. v. NationsBank of Virginiagreen1 sentence2026Brauer Co. v. NationsBank of Va., N.A., 251 Va. 28, 36 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Yeatts v. Murraygreen2 sentences2024See Moison v. Commonwealth, 302 Va. 417 , 420 (2023) (order) (“[T]he purpose of assignments of error is to point out the errors with reasonable certainty . . . and to limit discussion to these points.” (quoting Yeatts v. Murray, 249 Va. 285, 290 (1995))); id. (noting that the language of an assignment of error “cabins the error that [appellate courts] can consider”); Forest Lakes Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. United Land Corp. of America, 293 Va. 113, 123 (2017) (“A properly aimed assignment of error must ‘point out’ the targeted error and not simply take ‘a shot 3 Jury Instruction No. 12 provided that 2024See Moison v. Commonwealth, 302 Va. 417 , 420 (2023) (order) (“[T]he purpose of assignments of error is to point out the errors with reasonable certainty . . . and to limit discussion to these points.” (quoting Yeatts v. Murray, 249 Va. 285, 290 (1995))); id. (noting that the language of an assignment of error “cabins the error that [appellate courts] can consider”); Forest Lakes Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. United Land Corp. of America, 293 Va. 113, 123 (2017) (“A properly aimed assignment of error must ‘point out’ the targeted error and not simply take ‘a shot 3 Jury Instruction No. 12 provided that | 1 | 1 |
Forest Lakes Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. United Land Corp. of Am.green1 sentence2024See Moison v. Commonwealth, 302 Va. 417 , 420 (2023) (order) (“[T]he purpose of assignments of error is to point out the errors with reasonable certainty . . . and to limit discussion to these points.” (quoting Yeatts v. Murray, 249 Va. 285, 290 (1995))); id. (noting that the language of an assignment of error “cabins the error that [appellate courts] can consider”); Forest Lakes Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. United Land Corp. of America, 293 Va. 113, 123 (2017) (“A properly aimed assignment of error must ‘point out’ the targeted error and not simply take ‘a shot 3 Jury Instruction No. 12 provided that | 1 | 1 |
Hechler Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2010Hechler Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp, 230 Va. 396, 402 , 337 S.E.2d 744, 748 (1985). 2010Hechler Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp, 230 Va. 396, 402 , 337 S.E.2d 744, 748 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Greenville Publishing Company, Inc. v. The Daily Reflector, Incorporatedgreen1 sentence2010Greenville Publishing Co. v. Daily Reflector, Inc., 496 F.2d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 1974). | 1 | 1 |
Commercial Business Systems, Inc. v. Halifax Corp.green2 sentences2007See Halifax, 253 Va. at 300 , 484 S.E.2d at 896 . 2007See Halifax, 253 Va. at 300 , 484 S.E.2d at 896 . | 1 | 1 |
Almy v. Grishamgreen1 sentence2006Likewise, in Almy , the Circuit Court noted, “For a conspiracy claim to be viable, the plaintiff must allege all of the elements of the underlying claim in order to make aprima facie case for conspiracy to commit that claim.” 55 Va. Cir. at 404 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Cirios v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2000“The order of presentation of evidence ... is usually a matter left to the discretion of the trial court and, absent an abuse of discretion, will not be disturbed.” Cirios v. Commonwealth, 7 Va.App. 292, 300 , 373 S.E.2d 164, 168 (1988) (citations omitted). “[Statements, otherwise inadmissible as hearsay, may be ‘conditionally admitted subject to being “connected up” by subsequent independent proof of concert of action.’ ... [Thus,] [w]hen the record shows facts from which the existence of a conspiracy could reasonably be inferred, the case will not be reversed because proof of the conspiracy 2000“The order of presentation of evidence ... is usually a matter left to the discretion of the trial court and, absent an abuse of discretion, will not be disturbed.” Cirios v. Commonwealth, 7 Va.App. 292, 300 , 373 S.E.2d 164, 168 (1988) (citations omitted). “[Statements, otherwise inadmissible as hearsay, may be ‘conditionally admitted subject to being “connected up” by subsequent independent proof of concert of action.’ ... [Thus,] [w]hen the record shows facts from which the existence of a conspiracy could reasonably be inferred, the case will not be reversed because proof of the conspiracy | 1 | 1 |
Floyd v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2000“The order of presentation of evidence ... is usually a matter left to the discretion of the trial court and, absent an abuse of discretion, will not be disturbed.” Cirios v. Commonwealth, 7 Va.App. 292, 300 , 373 S.E.2d 164, 168 (1988) (citations omitted). “[Statements, otherwise inadmissible as hearsay, may be ‘conditionally admitted subject to being “connected up” by subsequent independent proof of concert of action.’ ... [Thus,] [w]hen the record shows facts from which the existence of a conspiracy could reasonably be inferred, the case will not be reversed because proof of the conspiracy 2000“The order of presentation of evidence ... is usually a matter left to the discretion of the trial court and, absent an abuse of discretion, will not be disturbed.” Cirios v. Commonwealth, 7 Va.App. 292, 300 , 373 S.E.2d 164, 168 (1988) (citations omitted). “[Statements, otherwise inadmissible as hearsay, may be ‘conditionally admitted subject to being “connected up” by subsequent independent proof of concert of action.’ ... [Thus,] [w]hen the record shows facts from which the existence of a conspiracy could reasonably be inferred, the case will not be reversed because proof of the conspiracy | 1 | 1 |
Advanced Marine Enterprises, Inc. v. PRC Inc.green2 sentences2000Establishing a conspiracy in violation of §§ 18.2-499 and -500 does not require proof that the conspirators’ “primary and overriding purpose is to injure another.” Advanced Marine Enterprises v. PRC Inc., 256 Va. 106, 117 , 501 S.E.2d 148, 154 (1998). 2000Establishing a conspiracy in violation of §§ 18.2-499 and -500 does not require proof that the conspirators’ “primary and overriding purpose is to injure another.” Advanced Marine Enterprises v. PRC Inc., 256 Va. 106, 117 , 501 S.E.2d 148, 154 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Glass v. Glassgreen2 sentences1993While poorly pleaded and demurrable, Count IX does set forth some elements of a conspiracy claim, including an allegation that Trafalgar knowingly assisted Les Jones in an unlawful diversion of Dulles’ assets. 1 See Glass v. Glass, 228 Va. 39, 47 , 321 S.E.2d 69, 74 (1984). 1993While poorly pleaded and demurrable, Count IX does set forth some elements of a conspiracy claim, including an allegation that Trafalgar knowingly assisted Les Jones in an unlawful diversion of Dulles’ assets. 1 See Glass v. Glass, 228 Va. 39, 47 , 321 S.E.2d 69, 74 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
STATION 2, LLC v. Lynch
green
2 sentences2012C. v. Lynch, 280 Va. 166, 173 , 695 S.E.2d 537 (2010). 2012C. v. Lynch, 280 Va. 166, 173 , 695 S.E.2d 537 (2010). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Fox v. Deese
green
2 sentences2006The second is defendants’ argument that the conspiracy claim in Count II should be dismissed because Ventura and Guzman are agents of Polio Ranchero, Inc., and “by definition, a single entity cannot conspire with itself.” Fox v. Deese, 234 Va. 412 , 362 S.E.2d 699 (1987). 2006The second is defendants’ argument that the conspiracy claim in Count II should be dismissed because Ventura and Guzman are agents of Polio Ranchero, Inc., and “by definition, a single entity cannot conspire with itself.” Fox v. Deese, 234 Va. 412 , 362 S.E.2d 699 (1987). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
CaterCorp, Inc. v. Catering Concepts, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Moreover, in CaterCorp, Inc. v. Catering Concepts, Inc., 246 Va. 22 , 431 S.E.2d 277 (1993), fee Court in consideration of a conspiracy claim stated fee following: When a motion for judgment or a bill of complaint contains sufficient allegations of material facts to inform a defendant of fee nature and character of fee claim, it is unnecessary for the pleader to descend into statements giving details of proof in order to withstand demurrer. 2001Moreover, in CaterCorp, Inc. v. Catering Concepts, Inc., 246 Va. 22 , 431 S.E.2d 277 (1993), fee Court in consideration of a conspiracy claim stated fee following: When a motion for judgment or a bill of complaint contains sufficient allegations of material facts to inform a defendant of fee nature and character of fee claim, it is unnecessary for the pleader to descend into statements giving details of proof in order to withstand demurrer. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Ragu Foods, Inc. And Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992Hunt-Wesson, 627 F.2d at 926 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Falstaff Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewery Co.
green
1 sentence1992Falstaff, 628 F. Supp. at 826 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.