14 Virginia opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Womble v. Guntergreen2 sentences2010Id. at 526, 529-30 , 95 S.E.2d. at 216, 219 (holding that several beneficiaries triggered a forfeiture clause by bringing suit to invalidate a will on the ground the testator lacked mental capacity). 1993Womble v. Gunter, 198 Va. 522, 529 , 95 S.E.2d 213, 219 (1956). | 3 | 3 |
Giles v. Californiagreen2 sentences2009As noted above, Giles holds that the forfeiture doctrine also applies in domestic violence situations where there is evidence of "the intent to isolate the victim and to stop her from reporting abuse to the authorities or cooperating with a criminal prosecution." Id. at --, 128 S.Ct. at 2693 , 171 L.Ed.2d at 506 (emphasis added). 2009As noted above, Giles holds that the forfeiture doctrine also applies in domestic violence situations where there is evidence of "the intent to isolate the victim and to stop her from reporting abuse to the authorities or cooperating with a criminal prosecution." Id. at --, 128 S.Ct. at 2693 , 171 L.Ed.2d at 506 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Potomac Edison Co. of Virginia, Inc. v. Cashgreen2 sentences2009Hence, the forfeiture rule does not apply, for example, to “bar [an employee’s] application for benefits after termination for cause when [the employee] subsequently suffers total disability caused by the prior work-related injury.” Cash, 18 Va.App. at 632 , 446 S.E.2d at 157 . 2009Hence, the forfeiture rule does not apply, for example, to “bar [an employee’s] application for benefits after termination for cause when [the employee] subsequently suffers total disability caused by the prior work-related injury.” Cash, 18 Va.App. at 632 , 446 S.E.2d at 157 . | 2 | 2 |
Tumlin v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.green2 sentences2005However, the forfeiture rule set forth in Murphy has subsequently been “limited to its factual context,” Tumlin v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 18 Va.App. 375, 380 , 444 S.E.2d 22, 24 (1994), and found not to bar a claimant discharged from selective employment for willful misconduct from receiving post-termination wage-loss benefits when the wage loss is “properly attributable” to the claimant’s “disability caused by a compensable industrial accident,” Potomac Edison Co. v. Cash, 18 Va.App. 629, 633-34 , 446 S.E.2d 155, 157-58 (1994). 2005However, the forfeiture rule set forth in Murphy has subsequently been “limited to its factual context,” Tumlin v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 18 Va.App. 375, 380 , 444 S.E.2d 22, 24 (1994), and found not to bar a claimant discharged from selective employment for willful misconduct from receiving post-termination wage-loss benefits when the wage loss is “properly attributable” to the claimant’s “disability caused by a compensable industrial accident,” Potomac Edison Co. v. Cash, 18 Va.App. 629, 633-34 , 446 S.E.2d 155, 157-58 (1994). | 2 | 2 |
Lincoln National Life Insurance v. Commonwealth Corrugated Container Corp.green2 sentences2015See also Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. v. Commonwealth Corrugated Container Corp., 229 Va. 132 , 136-37, 327 S.E.2d 98 , 101 (1985) (applying the principle of strict construction to an insurance policy "[b]ecause the policy language is ambiguous"); Williams v. Mutual of Omaha, 297 F.2d 876 , 879 (4th Cir.1962) (analyzing an insurance contract and stating that "no ambiguity arises for application of the principle of strict construction"). 2015See also Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. v. Commonwealth Corrugated Container Corp., 229 Va. 132 , 136-37, 327 S.E.2d 98 , 101 (1985) (applying the principle of strict construction to an insurance policy "[b]ecause the policy language is ambiguous"); Williams v. Mutual of Omaha, 297 F.2d 876 , 879 (4th Cir.1962) (analyzing an insurance contract and stating that "no ambiguity arises for application of the principle of strict construction"). | 1 | 1 |
Eppling v. Schultz Dining Programsgreen2 sentences2009Thus, we have held that, to establish a termination for cause and a forfeiture of subsequent compensation benefits under the forfeiture rule associated with Code § 65.2-510(A), “the Vage loss [must be] properly attributable to [the employee’s] wrongful act ... [for which t]he employee is responsible.’ ” Eppling v. Schultz Dining Programs, 18 Va.App. 125, 129 , 442 S.E.2d 219, 222 (1994) (alterations and omission in original) (quoting Murphy, 12 Va.App. at 639-40 , 406 S.E.2d at 193 ). 2009Thus, we have held that, to establish a termination for cause and a forfeiture of subsequent compensation benefits under the forfeiture rule associated with Code § 65.2-510(A), “the Vage loss [must be] properly attributable to [the employee’s] wrongful act ... [for which t]he employee is responsible.’ ” Eppling v. Schultz Dining Programs, 18 Va.App. 125, 129 , 442 S.E.2d 219, 222 (1994) (alterations and omission in original) (quoting Murphy, 12 Va.App. at 639-40 , 406 S.E.2d at 193 ). | 1 | 1 |
M & S Auto Parts, Inc. v. Presgravesgreen2 sentences2009The deputy commissioner denied the entire claim, concluding that, under the forfeiture rule, the employee “was not entitled to disability benefits because he was fired for cause in December 2002 and would be entitled to benefits only during periods of temporary total disability.” Id. at 459 , 611 S.E.2d at 657 . 2009The deputy commissioner denied the entire claim, concluding that, under the forfeiture rule, the employee “was not entitled to disability benefits because he was fired for cause in December 2002 and would be entitled to benefits only during periods of temporary total disability.” Id. at 459 , 611 S.E.2d at 657 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barthelmegreen2 sentences2008"Such a statute makes `immunity' the legislatively sanctioned compensation for an individual's forfeiture of his privilege against self-incrimination when he has been compelled to deliver up self-incriminating testimony or evidence." State v. Barthelme, 172 P.3d 201, 203 (Okla.Crim. 2008“Such a statute makes ‘immunity’ the legislatively sanctioned compensation for an individual’s forfeiture of his privilege against self-incrimination when he has been compelled to deliver up self-incriminating testimony or evidence.” State v. Barthelme, 172 P.3d 201, 203 (Okla.Crim.App.2007). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Virginia Foundation of Independent Colleges v. Goodrich
green
2 sentences2020In Goodrich, we recognized that seeking the “guidance of a court in interpreting” a disputed provision of a will does not constitute contesting the will “in a manner which would actuate a forfeiture clause.” 246 Va. at 438 . 2015Colls. v. Goodrich, 246 Va. 435 , 439, 436 S.E.2d 418 , 420 (1993) (holding that seeking guidance from the court in interpreting a will was not a challenge “questioning” the testator’s intent under the no- 6 On this point, I concur with Professor Leavitt’s reconciliation of these two seemingly discordant principles: “It is true that a forfeiture clause is to be strictly construed, but it is equally true that if the provisions are not strictured by law or by public policy they will be enforced according to the ascertained intent of the testator.” Leavitt, supra note 5, at 64. 39 contest clause | 2 | 2015–2020 |
CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2009Thus, we have held that, to establish a termination for cause and a forfeiture of subsequent compensation benefits under the forfeiture rule associated with Code § 65.2-510(A), “the Vage loss [must be] properly attributable to [the employee’s] wrongful act ... [for which t]he employee is responsible.’ ” Eppling v. Schultz Dining Programs, 18 Va.App. 125, 129 , 442 S.E.2d 219, 222 (1994) (alterations and omission in original) (quoting Murphy, 12 Va.App. at 639-40 , 406 S.E.2d at 193 ). 1994We hold that the forfeiture rule established in C&P Telephone Co. v. Murphy, 12 Va. App. 633 , 406 S.E.2d 190 , aff'd en banc, 13 Va. App. 304 , 411 S.E.2d 444 (1991), does not bar a claimant’s request for temporary total disability benefits necessitated by a medical change in condition directly related to her earlier industrial accident. | 2 | 1994–2009 |
Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2009Thus, we have held that, to establish a termination for cause and a forfeiture of subsequent compensation benefits under the forfeiture rule associated with Code § 65.2-510(A), “the Vage loss [must be] properly attributable to [the employee’s] wrongful act ... [for which t]he employee is responsible.’ ” Eppling v. Schultz Dining Programs, 18 Va.App. 125, 129 , 442 S.E.2d 219, 222 (1994) (alterations and omission in original) (quoting Murphy, 12 Va.App. at 639-40 , 406 S.E.2d at 193 ). 1994We hold that the forfeiture rule established in C&P Telephone Co. v. Murphy, 12 Va. App. 633 , 406 S.E.2d 190 , aff'd en banc, 13 Va. App. 304 , 411 S.E.2d 444 (1991), does not bar a claimant’s request for temporary total disability benefits necessitated by a medical change in condition directly related to her earlier industrial accident. | 2 | 1994–2009 |
VA. FOUND. OF IND. COLLEGES v. Goodrich
green
1 sentence2015Colls. v. Goodrich, 246 Va. 435 , 439, 436 S.E.2d 418 , 420 (1993) (holding that seeking guidance from the court in interpreting a will was not a challenge “questioning” the testator’s intent under the no- 6 On this point, I concur with Professor Leavitt’s reconciliation of these two seemingly discordant principles: “It is true that a forfeiture clause is to be strictly construed, but it is equally true that if the provisions are not strictured by law or by public policy they will be enforced according to the ascertained intent of the testator.” Leavitt, supra note 5, at 64. 39 contest clause | 1 | 2015–2015 |
George L. Williams v. Mutual of Omaha
green
1 sentence2015See also Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. v. Commonwealth Corrugated Container Corp., 229 Va. 132 , 136-37, 327 S.E.2d 98 , 101 (1985) (applying the principle of strict construction to an insurance policy "[b]ecause the policy language is ambiguous"); Williams v. Mutual of Omaha, 297 F.2d 876 , 879 (4th Cir.1962) (analyzing an insurance contract and stating that "no ambiguity arises for application of the principle of strict construction"). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Plunkett v. Plunkett
green
2 sentences2013The Agreement must be considered as a whole, and the two sentences need to be “harmonized so as to effectuate the intention of the parties.” Plunkett, 271 Va. at 168 , 624 S.E.2d at 42 . 2013The Agreement must be considered as a whole, and the two sentences need to be “harmonized so as to effectuate the intention of the parties.” Plunkett, 271 Va. at 168 , 624 S.E.2d at 42 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch
green
2 sentences1995Not only does the forfeiture of the privilege to drive hinge upon the commission of an offense, but as the Supreme Court noted in Kurth Ranch , the forfeiture is characteristic of punishment because “it also is exacted only after [the driver] has been arrested for the precise conduct that gives rise to the ... [forfeiture] in the first place.” — U.S. at-, 114 S.Ct. at 1947 . 1995Not only does the forfeiture of the privilege to drive hinge upon the commission of an offense, but as the Supreme Court noted in Kurth Ranch , the forfeiture is characteristic of punishment because "it also is exacted only after [the driver] has been arrested for the precise conduct that gives rise to the ... [forfeiture] in the first place." ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 1947 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Cox v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1994We hold that the forfeiture rule established in C&P Telephone Co. v. Murphy, 12 Va. App. 633 , 406 S.E.2d 190 , aff'd en banc, 13 Va. App. 304 , 411 S.E.2d 444 (1991), does not bar a claimant’s request for temporary total disability benefits necessitated by a medical change in condition directly related to her earlier industrial accident. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Murphy
green
1 sentence1994We hold that the forfeiture rule established in C&P Telephone Co. v. Murphy, 12 Va. App. 633 , 406 S.E.2d 190 , aff'd en banc, 13 Va. App. 304 , 411 S.E.2d 444 (1991), does not bar a claimant’s request for temporary total disability benefits necessitated by a medical change in condition directly related to her earlier industrial accident. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Heacock v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1993There, finding that the bond forfeiture hearing conducted by the trial court “was not constitutionally sufficient” because the surety was not provided the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses, id. at 242 , 321 S.E.2d at 649 , this Court reversed the judgment in the Commonwealth’s favor and remanded the case for a new forfeiture hearing, id. 1993There, finding that the bond forfeiture hearing conducted by the trial court “was not constitutionally sufficient” because the surety was not provided the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses, id. at 242 , 321 S.E.2d at 649 , this Court reversed the judgment in the Commonwealth’s favor and remanded the case for a new forfeiture hearing, id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.