interpanel accord doctrine in Virginia

105 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 56 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.

Followed or applied (36)

Case	Followed	Cited
Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reedgreen vactapp · 2003 · cited in 53 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2007–2025 2 sentences 2025See, e.g., Johnson v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 475 , 481-82 (2022) (“The interpanel-accord doctrine ‘applies not merely to the literal holding of the case, but also to its ratio decidendi—the essential rationale in the case that determines the judgment.’” (quoting Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73-74 (2003))). 2025To the extent Moison argues that Blankenship was wrongly decided, we note that the interpanel-accord doctrine provides that a decision of a prior panel of this Court “‘becomes a predicate for application of the doctrine of stare decisis’ and cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court.” Butcher v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 392 , 397 n.6 (2020) (quoting Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73 (2003)).	50	53
Johnson v. Commonwealthgreen va · 1996 · cited in 20 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2009–2024 2 sentences 2024Importantly, under the interpanel-accord doctrine, where we have spoken through published opinion, the “decision . . . becomes a predicate for application of the doctrine of stare decisis until overruled by a decision of the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by a decision of th[e] [Supreme] Court.” Brown v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 44 , 51 n.1 (2017) (third alteration in original) (quoting Johnson v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 425, 430 (1996)). 2023Although Thomas challenges McCarthy’s holdings, the interpanel accord doctrine mandates that “a decision of a panel of the Court of Appeals becomes a predicate for application of the doctrine of stare decisis until overruled by a decision of the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by a decision of [the Supreme] Court.” Brown v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 44 , 51 n.1 (2017) (alteration in original) (quoting Johnson v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 425, 430 (1996)).	20	20
Congdon v. Congdongreen vactapp · 2003 · cited in 15 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2007–2023 2 sentences 2023“A decision of one panel protected by the interpanel accord doctrine ‘cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court.’” Id. (quoting Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255, 265 (2003)). 2018"A decision of one panel protected by the interpanel accord doctrine 'cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court.' " White v. Commonwealth , 67 Va. App. 599 , 612 n.7, 798 S.E.2d 818 , 824 n.7 (2017) (quoting Congdon v. Congdon , 40 Va. App. 255 , 265, 578 S.E.2d 833 , 838 (2003) ).	12	15
Christopher Wayne Butler v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen vactapp · 2014 · cited in 9 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2016–2025 2 sentences 2025And though appellant invites us to reconsider our decision in Wright, the interpanel accord doctrine prevents us from doing so.5 See, e.g., Butler v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 7, 12-13 (2014) (noting that a published decision from a panel of this Court “cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court” (quoting Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73 (2003))). 2023Similarly, “the interpanel accord doctrine” provides that a prior decision of a panel of this Court “‘cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court.’” Butler v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 7, 12-13 (2014) (quoting Clinchfiled Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73 (2003)); Vay, 67 Va. App. at 257 (same).	9	9
Hugo Alberto Sandoval v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen vactapp · 2015 · cited in 7 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2017–2023 2 sentences 2023Under the interpanel accord doctrine, “a decision from a panel of this Court ‘cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court.’” Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 398, 419 (2015) (quoting Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73 (2003)). 2022See Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 398, 419 (2015) (noting that the interpanel accord doctrine precludes the overruling of a published decision of a panel of the Court of Appeals other than by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court of Virginia). -8- While the dissent argues that the use of the “reasonable probability” standard in Carlson and Knight was mere dicta because the outcome in each of these cases did not turn on “the difference between ‘reasonable probability’ and ‘inevitable discovery,’” infra at 27, we note that the interpanel accord doctrine “applies no	7	7
Manneh Vay v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen vactapp · 2017 · cited in 7 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2017–2024 2 sentences 2024See Vay v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 236 , 258 n.6 (2017) (noting that this Court is bound by decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia); see also Brown v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 44 , 51 n.1 (2017) (explaining the interpanel accord doctrine). - 12 - impose specific sentences.” Runyon v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 573, 577-78 (1999). 2023Similarly, “the interpanel accord doctrine” provides that a prior decision of a panel of this Court “‘cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court.’” Butler v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 7, 12-13 (2014) (quoting Clinchfiled Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73 (2003)); Vay, 67 Va. App. at 257 (same).	6	7
Stephen Keith White v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen vactapp · 2017 · cited in 10 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2018–2024 2 sentences 2024See White v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 599 , 612 n.7 (2017) (“A holding by one panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia ‘bind[s] all other three-judge panels under the interpanel accord doctrine.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Startin v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 26 , 39 n.3 (2010) (en banc))). 2024See White v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 599 , 612 n.7 (2017) (“A holding by one panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia ‘bind[s] all other three-judge panels under the interpanel accord doctrine.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Startin v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 26 , 39 n.3 (2010) (en banc))).	5	10
Startin v. Commonwealthgreen vactapp · 2010 · cited in 19 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2011–2024 2 sentences 2024See White v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 599 , 612 n.7 (2017) (“A holding by one panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia ‘bind[s] all other three-judge panels under the interpanel accord doctrine.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Startin v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 26 , 39 n.3 (2010) (en banc))). 2024See White v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 599 , 612 n.7 (2017) (“A holding by one panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia ‘bind[s] all other three-judge panels under the interpanel accord doctrine.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Startin v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 26 , 39 n.3 (2010) (en banc))).	4	19
Kaniesha Shatae Hannon v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen vactapp · 2017 · cited in 4 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2017–2026 2 sentences 2026See generally Hannon v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 87, 96 (2017) (explaining that under the interpanel accord doctrine, a panel of this Court is bound by other panel opinions of the Court). 2021See generally Hannon v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 87, 97 (2017) (“‘Under the interpanel accord doctrine, [a subsequent panel] lack[s] the authority to revisit’ prior published opinions of the Court of Appeals.” (alterations in original) (quoting Butler v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 7, 12 (2014))). -7- bills as prima facie evidence.	4	4
Brandau v. Brandaugreen vactapp · 2008 · cited in 4 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2021–2023 2 sentences 2023See Kilpatrick v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 172 , 195 n.9 (2021); Brandau v. Brandau, 52 Va. App. 632 , 639 n.2 (2008) (“Unpublished opinions, of course, have no precedential value and thus do not implicate the interpanel accord doctrine.”). -8- police to quickly determine whether they should allow the suspect to go about his business or hold him to answer charges.’” Morris, 58 Va. App. at 183 (quoting Raab v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 577, 582 (2007) (en banc)). 2022See Kilpatrick v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 172 , 195 n.9 (2021); Brandau v. Brandau, 52 Va. App. 632 , 639 n.2 (2008) (“Unpublished opinions, of course, have no precedential value and thus do not implicate the interpanel accord doctrine.”). -8- police to quickly determine whether they should allow the suspect to go about his business or hold him to answer charges.’” Morris, 58 Va. App. at 183 (quoting Raab v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 577, 582 (2007) (en banc)).	3	4
Christian John Prekker v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen vactapp · 2016 · cited in 3 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2017–2024 2 sentences 2024Breaking no new ground, the Court applied the holding in Carter, noting that, while published panel decisions “bind all other three-judge panels under the interpanel accord doctrine . . . they do not bind the Court sitting en banc.” 66 Va. App. at 110 (alteration in original) (quoting Startin v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 26 , 39 n.3 (2010) (en banc)). 2018Accordingly, appellant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated. 3 See Prekker v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 103, 110 , 782 S.E.2d 604, 607 (2016) (noting that “[u]nder the interpanel accord doctrine, [a subsequent panel] lack[s] the authority to revisit” prior published opinions of the Court of Appeals (quoting Butler v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 7, 12 , 763 S.E.2d 829, 832 (2014))).	3	3
Wayne Antonio Bland, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen vactapp · 2016 · cited in 3 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2022–2023 2 sentences 2023In determining whether a police officer had the “minimal level of objective justification” to justify such a stop, we consider the totality of the circumstances, Bland v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 405, 413 (2016), and “we eschew any ‘divide-and-conquer analysis’ that ignores the ‘totality of the circumstances,’” Shifflett v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 732, 740 (2011). 2022In determining whether a police officer had the “minimal level of objective justification” to justify such a stop, we consider the totality of the circumstances, Bland v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 405, 413 (2016), and “we eschew any ‘divide-and-conquer analysis’ that ignores the ‘totality of the circumstances,’” Shifflett v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 732, 740 (2011).	3	3
Shifflett v. Commonwealthgreen vactapp · 2011 · cited in 3 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2022–2023 2 sentences 2023In determining whether a police officer had the “minimal level of objective justification” to justify such a stop, we consider the totality of the circumstances, Bland v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 405, 413 (2016), and “we eschew any ‘divide-and-conquer analysis’ that ignores the ‘totality of the circumstances,’” Shifflett v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 732, 740 (2011). 2022In determining whether a police officer had the “minimal level of objective justification” to justify such a stop, we consider the totality of the circumstances, Bland v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 405, 413 (2016), and “we eschew any ‘divide-and-conquer analysis’ that ignores the ‘totality of the circumstances,’” Shifflett v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 732, 740 (2011).	3	3
Raab v. Commonwealthgreen vactapp · 2007 · cited in 3 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2022–2023 2 sentences 2023See Kilpatrick v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 172 , 195 n.9 (2021); Brandau v. Brandau, 52 Va. App. 632 , 639 n.2 (2008) (“Unpublished opinions, of course, have no precedential value and thus do not implicate the interpanel accord doctrine.”). -8- police to quickly determine whether they should allow the suspect to go about his business or hold him to answer charges.’” Morris, 58 Va. App. at 183 (quoting Raab v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 577, 582 (2007) (en banc)). 2022See Kilpatrick v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 172 , 195 n.9 (2021); Brandau v. Brandau, 52 Va. App. 632 , 639 n.2 (2008) (“Unpublished opinions, of course, have no precedential value and thus do not implicate the interpanel accord doctrine.”). -8- police to quickly determine whether they should allow the suspect to go about his business or hold him to answer charges.’” Morris, 58 Va. App. at 183 (quoting Raab v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 577, 582 (2007) (en banc)).	3	3
Towler v. Commonwealthgreen vactapp · 2011 · cited in 2 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2019–2023 2 sentences 2023Under the interpanel accord doctrine, a decision by a panel of this Court “cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court.” Towler v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 284, 293 (2011) (quoting Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73 (2003)). 6 On May 21, 2021, Guest was arrested on a felony warrant charging him with larceny “in violation of Section 18.2-103/18.2-104, Code of Virginia” and alleging that “[t]he accused has been convicted two or more times previously of larceny offenses or of offenses deemed or punishable as larceny.” -9- not 2019See Towler v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 284, 293 (2011) (explaining that a decision by a panel of the Court “cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court” (quoting Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73 (2003))).	2	2
Commonwealth v. Burnsgreen va · 1990 · cited in 2 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2011–2012 2 sentences 2012Under the interpanel accord doctrine, however, the “decision of one panel ‘becomes a predicate for application of the doctrine of stare decisis’ and cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court.” Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73 , 577 S.E.2d 538, 540 (2003) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Burns, 240 Va. 171, 174 , 395 S.E.2d 456, 457 (1990). 2012Under the interpanel accord doctrine, however, the “decision of one panel ‘becomes a predicate for application of the doctrine of stare decisis’ and cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court.” Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73 , 577 S.E.2d 538, 540 (2003) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Burns, 240 Va. 171, 174 , 395 S.E.2d 456, 457 (1990).	2	2
George Ellis Brown, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen vactapp · 2017 · cited in 12 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2022–2024 2 sentences 2024See Vay v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 236 , 258 n.6 (2017) (noting that this Court is bound by decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia); see also Brown v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 44 , 51 n.1 (2017) (explaining the interpanel accord doctrine). - 12 - impose specific sentences.” Runyon v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 573, 577-78 (1999). 2024Importantly, under the interpanel-accord doctrine, where we have spoken through published opinion, the “decision . . . becomes a predicate for application of the doctrine of stare decisis until overruled by a decision of the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by a decision of th[e] [Supreme] Court.” Brown v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 44 , 51 n.1 (2017) (third alteration in original) (quoting Johnson v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 425, 430 (1996)).	1	12
Sutphin v. Commonwealthgreen vactapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025See, e.g., Sutphin v. Commonwealth, 1 Va. App. 241, 245 (1985) (“The policy underlying the exclusion of such evidence protects the accused against unfair prejudice resulting from the consideration of prior criminal conduct in determining guilt.”).	1	1
Runyon v. Commonwealthgreen vactapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024See Vay v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 236 , 258 n.6 (2017) (noting that this Court is bound by decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia); see also Brown v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 44 , 51 n.1 (2017) (explaining the interpanel accord doctrine). - 12 - impose specific sentences.” Runyon v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 573, 577-78 (1999).	1	1
Gary Linwood Bush v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen vactapp · 2018 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023See Bush v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 797 , 808 n.4 (2018) (“A decision of one panel protected by the interpanel[-]accord doctrine ‘cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court.’” (quoting White v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 599 , 612 n.7 (2017))).	1	1
State v. Persongreen connappct · 1989 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021	1	1
State v. Gallupgreen orctapp · 1989 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021	1	1
State v. Armstronggreen lactapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021	1	1
Prophet v. BULLOCK CORP.green vactapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021	1	1
Com. v. Jacksongreen va · 2008 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017	1	1
TURNER GILBANE JV v. Guzmangreen vactapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016	1	1
Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. v. Testermangreen vactapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014	1	1
Keller v. Dennygreen va · 1987 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
Richmond Memorial Hospital v. Allengreen vactapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Smitgreen va · 2003 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
Luginbyhl v. Commonwealthgreen vactapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
Burch v. Grace Street Building Corp.red va · 1937 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010	1	1
Turner v. Commonwealthgreen vactapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010	1	1
Valentine v. Commonwealthgreen vactapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010	1	1
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Robinsongreen vactapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008	1	1
Benjamin Henderson Jones v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Virginiagreen ca4 · 1996 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (19)

Case	Cited	Years
Robert Allen Hutton v. Commonwealth of Virginia green vactapp · 2016 2 sentences 2024This doctrine does not “merely [apply] to the literal holding of the case, but also to its ratio decidendi—the essential rationale in the case that determines the judgment.” Hutton v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 714 , 724 n.5 (2016) (quoting Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73-74 (2003)). 2022See Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 398, 419 (2015) (noting that the interpanel accord doctrine precludes the overruling of a published decision of a panel of the Court of Appeals other than by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court of Virginia). -8- While the dissent argues that the use of the “reasonable probability” standard in Carlson and Knight was mere dicta because the outcome in each of these cases did not turn on “the difference between ‘reasonable probability’ and ‘inevitable discovery,’” infra at 27, we note that the interpanel accord doctrine “applies no	9	2022–2024
Atkins v. Commonwealth green vactapp · 2009 2 sentences 2025Respecting published decisions, “[u]nder the interpanel accord doctrine, the ‘decision of one panel “becomes a predicate for application of the doctrine of [stare decisis]” and cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting [en banc] or by the Virginia Supreme Court.’” Atkins v. Commonwealth, 54 Va. App. 340 , 343 n.2 (2009) (quoting Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73 (2003)). -6- jeopardy attached. 2014Testerman, 58 Va. App. at 484 , 711 S.E.2d at 236 (Petty, J., dissenting). 2 “Under the interpanel accord doctrine, ‘the decision of one panel becomes a predicate for application of the doctrine of stare decisis and cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court.’” Atkins v. Commonwealth, 54 Va. App. 340 , 343 n.2, 678 S.E.2d 834 , 835 n.2 (2009) (quoting Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73 , 577 S.E.2d 538, 540 (2003)). -6-	6	2010–2025
Carter v. Commonwealth green vactapp · 2002 2 sentences 2024I agree that the interpanel-accord doctrine requires this panel to follow our Court’s prior decision in Carter v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 116 (2002), and that Carter conclusively resolves this case. 2024I agree that the interpanel-accord doctrine requires this panel to follow our Court’s prior decision in Carter v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 116 (2002), and that Carter conclusively resolves this case.	3	2024–2024
Morris v. City of Virginia Beach green vactapp · 2011 2 sentences 2023See Kilpatrick v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 172 , 195 n.9 (2021); Brandau v. Brandau, 52 Va. App. 632 , 639 n.2 (2008) (“Unpublished opinions, of course, have no precedential value and thus do not implicate the interpanel accord doctrine.”). -8- police to quickly determine whether they should allow the suspect to go about his business or hold him to answer charges.’” Morris, 58 Va. App. at 183 (quoting Raab v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 577, 582 (2007) (en banc)). 2022See Kilpatrick v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 172 , 195 n.9 (2021); Brandau v. Brandau, 52 Va. App. 632 , 639 n.2 (2008) (“Unpublished opinions, of course, have no precedential value and thus do not implicate the interpanel accord doctrine.”). -8- police to quickly determine whether they should allow the suspect to go about his business or hold him to answer charges.’” Morris, 58 Va. App. at 183 (quoting Raab v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 577, 582 (2007) (en banc)).	3	2022–2023
COM./DEPT. OF STATE POLICE v. Haga green vactapp · 1994 1 sentence 2024Haga, 18 Va. App. at 166-67 . 1 Haga has not been reversed or overturned and is therefore binding under the interpanel accord doctrine.	1	2024–2024
Keith Osborne Collins v. Commonwealth of Virginia green vactapp · 1999 1 sentence 2023Under the interpanel accord doctrine, a decision by a panel of this Court “cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court.” Id. (quoting Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73 (2003)). 7 Code § 19.2-306.1(A). 8 Appellant provides no explanation on appeal for his calculation that the instant violations are only his “second technical violation” rather than his third.	1	2023–2023
Miller v. Commonwealth green vactapp · 1997 1 sentence 2023Miller, 25 Va. App. at 742-43 . -8- us to reach beyond our authority, as “[a] holding by one panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia ‘bind[s] all other three-judge panels under the interpanel accord doctrine.’” White v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 599 , 612 n.7 (2017) (quoting Startin v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 26 , 39 n.3 (2010) (en banc)).	1	2023–2023
Doggett v. United States green scotus · 1992 1 sentence 2023In fact, the Commonwealth only argued that the length of the delay overcomes the presumption of prejudice, which this Court has held applies— 13 The majority “note[s] that [it] question[s] the analysis of presumed prejudice articulated in Shavin [v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 256 (1993)], where our Court held that we presume prejudice under the fourth Barker factor in every case involving government negligence.” The majority correctly acknowledges that we are bound by the interpanel accord doctrine to this interpretation of Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992), and cites alternate inte	1	2023–2023
Shavin v. Commonwealth green vactapp · 1993 1 sentence 2023In fact, the Commonwealth only argued that the length of the delay overcomes the presumption of prejudice, which this Court has held applies— 13 The majority “note[s] that [it] question[s] the analysis of presumed prejudice articulated in Shavin [v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 256 (1993)], where our Court held that we presume prejudice under the fourth Barker factor in every case involving government negligence.” The majority correctly acknowledges that we are bound by the interpanel accord doctrine to this interpretation of Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992), and cites alternate inte	1	2023–2023
Bunch v. Commonwealth green vactapp · 2008 2 sentences 2023Similarly, we do not consider King’s request that we overturn Bunch v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 491 (2008), because as far as it is applicable, we are also bound by that decision under the interpanel accord doctrine.2 See White, 67 Va. App. at 612 n.7. 2023Similarly, we do not consider King’s request that we overturn Bunch v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 491 (2008), because as far as it is applicable, we are also bound by that decision under the interpanel accord doctrine.2 See White, 67 Va. App. at 612 n.7.	1	2023–2023
Jason William King, Sr. v. King George Department of Social Services green vactapp · 2018	1	2021–2021
Woodard v. Commonwealth green vactapp · 1994	1	2019–2019
McManus v. Commonwealth green vactapp · 1993	1	2019–2019
Jones v. Commonwealth green va · 2017	1	2019–2019
Ricks v. Commonwealth green va · 2015	1	2017–2017
James Albert Harris, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia green vactapp · 2014	1	2017–2017
King William County and Virginia Association of Counties Group v. Linda Jones green vactapp · 2015	1	2016–2016
Metro MacHine Corp. v. Lamb green vactapp · 2000	1	2014–2014
Startin v. Com. green va · 2011	1	2011–2011

Statutes the citing opinions construe

VA § Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-413 (70) VA § Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.2 (10) VA § Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-306 (10) VA § Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-10 (8) VA § Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-248 (8) VA § Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-298.01 (8) VA § Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-58 (6) VA § Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-306.1 (6) VA § Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-428 (6) VA § Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-678 (6) VA § Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-402 (5) VA § Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-32 (5)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check