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.
11 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clay v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2024“Hearsay evidence is inadmissible at trial unless it falls into one of the recognized exceptions to the rule.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 96, 104 (2000) (en banc), aff’d, 262 Va. 253 (2001). 2023“Hearsay evidence is inadmissible at trial unless it falls into one of the recognized exceptions to the rule.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 96, 104 (2000) (en banc), aff’d, 262 Va. 253 (2001). | 4 | 5 |
Evans-Smith v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2007Clay v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 650, 659 , 519 S.E.2d 393, 397-98 (1999) (citing Evans-Smith v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 188, 197 , 361 S.E.2d 436, 441 (1987)). 2007Clay v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 650, 659 , 519 S.E.2d 393, 397-98 (1999) (citing Evans-Smith v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 188, 197 , 361 S.E.2d 436, 441 (1987)). | 3 | 3 |
Terry v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2023Under Code § 19.2-268.2, in a prosecution for criminal sexual assault, “the fact that the person injured made a complaint of the offense recently after commission of the offense is admissible, not as independent evidence of the offense, but for the purpose of corroborating the -9- testimony of the complaining witness.” Code § 19.2-268.2 codifies Virginia’s common law “recent complaint” rule, thus admitting “evidence of a prompt complaint of [a crime involving improper sexual conduct] . . . to corroborate the complaining witness’[s] testimony regarding the occurrence of the [crime].” Terry v. C | 1 | 1 |
Woodard v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2023Under Code § 19.2-268.2, in a prosecution for criminal sexual assault, “the fact that the person injured made a complaint of the offense recently after commission of the offense is admissible, not as independent evidence of the offense, but for the purpose of corroborating the -9- testimony of the complaining witness.” Code § 19.2-268.2 codifies Virginia’s common law “recent complaint” rule, thus admitting “evidence of a prompt complaint of [a crime involving improper sexual conduct] . . . to corroborate the complaining witness’[s] testimony regarding the occurrence of the [crime].” Terry v. C | 1 | 1 |
Clay v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2007Clay v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 650, 659 , 519 S.E.2d 393, 397-98 (1999) (citing Evans-Smith v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 188, 197 , 361 S.E.2d 436, 441 (1987)). 2007Clay v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 650, 659 , 519 S.E.2d 393, 397-98 (1999) (citing Evans-Smith v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 188, 197 , 361 S.E.2d 436, 441 (1987)). | 1 | 1 |
Morse v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1996See Morse v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 627, 631-32 , 440 S.E.2d 145, 148 (1994); Moore, 222 Va. at 76-77 , 178 S.E.2d at 824-25. 1996See Morse v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 627, 631-32 , 440 S.E.2d 145, 148 (1994); Moore, 222 Va. at 76-77 , 178 S.E.2d at 824-25. | 1 | 1 |
Stegall v. Housing Authority of the City of Charlottegreen1 sentence1996See Morse v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 627, 631-32 , 440 S.E.2d 145, 148 (1994); Moore, 222 Va. at 76-77 , 178 S.E.2d at 824-25. | 1 | 1 |
Lucas v. Billergreen2 sentences1988The exception that guides our analysis in this case was defined succinctly in Lucas v. Biller, 204 Va. 309, 314 , 130 S.E.2d 582, 586 (1963) (citations omitted): As a general rule accidental injuries suffered by an employee while going to and from work are not covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act; however, one of the recognized exceptions to this rule is that when the employee is furnished transportation to or from his work by the employer and is accidentally injured during the course of travel, the injury arises out of and in the course of his employment and is compensable under the Act. 1988The exception that guides our analysis in this case was defined succinctly in Lucas v. Biller, 204 Va. 309, 314 , 130 S.E.2d 582, 586 (1963) (citations omitted): As a general rule accidental injuries suffered by an employee while going to and from work are not covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act; however, one of the recognized exceptions to this rule is that when the employee is furnished transportation to or from his work by the employer and is accidentally injured during the course of travel, the injury arises out of and in the course of his employment and is compensable under the Act. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clay v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2024“Hearsay evidence is inadmissible at trial unless it falls into one of the recognized exceptions to the rule.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 96, 104 (2000) (en banc), aff’d, 262 Va. 253 (2001). 2023“Hearsay evidence is inadmissible at trial unless it falls into one of the recognized exceptions to the rule.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 96, 104 (2000) (en banc), aff’d, 262 Va. 253 (2001). | 5 | 2017–2024 |
Kent v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.
green
2 sentences2005Co., 143 Va. 62 , 129 S.E. 330 (1925), we noted that among the recognized exceptions to this rule is "[w]here in going to and from work the means of transportation is provided by the employer." Id. at 66 , 129 S.E. at 332 . 2005Co., 143 Va. 62 , 129 S.E. 330 (1925), we noted that among the recognized exceptions to this rule is "[w]here in going to and from work the means of transportation is provided by the employer." Id. at 66 , 129 S.E. at 332 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Bristow v. Cross and Century
green
2 sentences2005We applied this exception in Bristow v. Cross, 210 Va. 718 , 173 S.E.2d 815 (1970), holding that the injury to an employee while going to work in an employer-owned vehicle arises out of and in the course of his employment "where the transportation is furnished by custom to the extent that it is incidental to and part of the contract of employment; or when it is the result of a continued practice in the course of the employer's business which is beneficial to both the employer and the employee." Id. at 720-21 , 173 S.E.2d at 817 ; cf. LeWhite Constr. 2005We applied this exception in Bristow v. Cross, 210 Va. 718 , 173 S.E.2d 815 (1970), holding that the injury to an employee while going to work in an employer-owned vehicle arises out of and in the course of his employment "where the transportation is furnished by custom to the extent that it is incidental to and part of the contract of employment; or when it is the result of a continued practice in the course of the employer's business which is beneficial to both the employer and the employee." Id. at 720-21 , 173 S.E.2d at 817 ; cf. LeWhite Constr. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Moore v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1996See Morse v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 627, 631-32 , 440 S.E.2d 145, 148 (1994); Moore, 222 Va. at 76-77 , 178 S.E.2d at 824-25. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.