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.
12 Virginia opinions name it 7 courts 1984–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shackelford v. Shackelfordgreen2 sentences2004“Instead, a trial court considers the factors in Code § 20-107.3, to make a decision regarding division of marital property.” Shackleford v. Shackleford, 39 Va. App. 201, 211 , 571 S.E.2d 917, 922 (2002). 2004“Instead, a trial court considers the factors in Code § 20-107.3, to make a decision regarding division of marital property.” Shackleford v. Shackleford, 39 Va. App. 201, 211 , 571 S.E.2d 917, 922 (2002). | 2 | 2 |
Bartsch v. Bartschgreen2 sentences1984Bartsch v. Bartsch, 204 Va. 462, 468 , 132 S.E.2d 416, 420 (1963). 1984Bartsch v. Bartsch, 204 Va. 462, 468 , 132 S.E.2d 416, 420 (1963). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Perkins (ORDER)green1 sentence2020Viewing the evidence in this light “requires us to ‘discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.’” Commonwealth v. Perkins, 295 Va. 323, 323-24 (2018) (quoting Vasquez v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 236 (2016)). | 1 | 1 |
Vasquez v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2020Viewing the evidence in this light “requires us to ‘discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.’” Commonwealth v. Perkins, 295 Va. 323, 323-24 (2018) (quoting Vasquez v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 236 (2016)). | 1 | 1 |
Donald Matthew Kelley v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2020When this Court considers a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review “the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, ‘as the prevailing party in the trial court.’” Kelley v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 617, 624 (2019) (quoting Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 94, 103 (2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Hamilton v. Com.green1 sentence2020When this Court considers a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review “the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, ‘as the prevailing party in the trial court.’” Kelley v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 617, 624 (2019) (quoting Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 94, 103 (2010)). | 1 | 1 |
O'Loughlin v. O'Loughlingreen1 sentence2018See O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 23 Va. App. 690, 695 , 479 -7- S.E.2d 98, 100 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morris v. Mosby
green
2 sentences2011See Nunnenkamp v. Copenhaver, No. 092506, slip op. at 2, (Va. July 29, 2011) (unpublished order) (“When a trial court considers the defense of laches, it does not apply an absolute rule such as a statute of limitations, but instead the court examines each case in light of the particular circumstances.”); Morris v. Mosby, 227 Va. 517, 521 , 317 S.E.2d 493 (1984). 2011See Nunnenkamp v. Copenhaver, No. 092506, slip op. at 2, (Va. July 29, 2011) (unpublished order) (“When a trial court considers the defense of laches, it does not apply an absolute rule such as a statute of limitations, but instead the court examines each case in light of the particular circumstances.”); Morris v. Mosby, 227 Va. 517, 521 , 317 S.E.2d 493 (1984). | 5 | 1987–2011 |
Frazier v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Sandridge
green
1 sentence2008Niemiec, 27 Va. App. at 451-52 , 499 S.E.2d at 579 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Niemiec v. COM., DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES
green
1 sentence2008Niemiec, 27 Va. App. at 451-52 , 499 S.E.2d at 579 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Meredith v. Goodwyn
green
1 sentence1987In Morris v. Mosby, 227 Va. 517 (1984), the Supreme Court repeats the discussion of the issue of laches in Meredith v. Goodwyn, 219 Va. 1025 (1979), at 523: When a trial court considers the defense of laches, it does not apply an absolute rule such as a statute of limitations, but instead, the court examines each case in light of the particular circumstances. . . [The] claimant’s delay must be unreasonable and prejudicial to the other party. . . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.