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 3 courts 1998–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Richards v. Musselmangreen2 sentences2025The equitable doctrine of unclean hands “does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives.” Richards v. Musselman, 221 Va. 181, 186 (1980) (quoting Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216, 229 (1934)). 2022The circuit court in this case focused on the unclean hands doctrine, “an ancient maxim of equity courts,” Richards v. Musselman, 221 Va. 181, 185 (1980), deeply embedded in the history of Anglo-American chancery courts. | 2 | 4 |
Walker v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2002Assuming, without deciding, that the unclean hands doctrine applies to these circumstances, we do not conclude that mother lacked “clean hands.” “[H]e who asks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” Walker v. Henderson, 151 Va. 913, 927-28 , 145 S.E. 311, 315 (1928). 2002Assuming, without deciding, that the unclean hands doctrine applies to these circumstances, we do not conclude that mother lacked “clean hands.” “[H]e who asks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” Walker v. Henderson, 151 Va. 913, 927-28 , 145 S.E. 311, 315 (1928). | 2 | 2 |
Wiglesworth v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2026But as Dorothy correctly points out, it was the plaintiff in Wiglesworth who asserted the unclean hands doctrine to defeat the defendant’s laches defense. 239 Va. at 608-09 . 2011Wiglesworth v. Taylor, 239 Va. 603, 608 , 391 S.E.2d 299, 303 (1990). -3- Based upon a review of the circumstances in this case, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in applying the doctrine of unclean hands. | 1 | 2 |
Loughran v. Loughrangreen1 sentence2025The equitable doctrine of unclean hands “does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives.” Richards v. Musselman, 221 Va. 181, 186 (1980) (quoting Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216, 229 (1934)). | 1 | 1 |
Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence2024See, e.g., Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 719 N.W.2d 809, 818 (Mich. 2006) (affirming dismissal of damages claim because of litigant’s unclean hands, finding “despite its origins, [the clean hands doctrine] is applicable to both equitable and legal damage claims”); Fremont Homes, Inc. v. Elmer, 974 P.2d 952 (Wyo. 1999) (determining the unclean hands doctrine does not apply to legal remedies). | 1 | 1 |
Westbrook v. Westbrookgreen2 sentences2015We have held, however, that “[t]he ‘clean hands doctrine’ is unavailable to a party when it is asserted in *458 the context of equitable distribution proceedings,” Westbrook v. Westbrook, 5 Va.App. 446, 457 , 364 S.E.2d 523, 530 (1988), and that it “does not apply to the determination of a spousal support award pursuant to Code § 20-107.1,” Huger v. Huger, 16 Va.App. 785, 791 , 433 S.E.2d 255, 259 (1993). 2015We have held, however, that “[t]he ‘clean hands doctrine’ is unavailable to a party when it is asserted in *458 the context of equitable distribution proceedings,” Westbrook v. Westbrook, 5 Va.App. 446, 457 , 364 S.E.2d 523, 530 (1988), and that it “does not apply to the determination of a spousal support award pursuant to Code § 20-107.1,” Huger v. Huger, 16 Va.App. 785, 791 , 433 S.E.2d 255, 259 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Huger v. Hugergreen2 sentences2015We have held, however, that “[t]he ‘clean hands doctrine’ is unavailable to a party when it is asserted in *458 the context of equitable distribution proceedings,” Westbrook v. Westbrook, 5 Va.App. 446, 457 , 364 S.E.2d 523, 530 (1988), and that it “does not apply to the determination of a spousal support award pursuant to Code § 20-107.1,” Huger v. Huger, 16 Va.App. 785, 791 , 433 S.E.2d 255, 259 (1993). 2015We have held, however, that “[t]he ‘clean hands doctrine’ is unavailable to a party when it is asserted in *458 the context of equitable distribution proceedings,” Westbrook v. Westbrook, 5 Va.App. 446, 457 , 364 S.E.2d 523, 530 (1988), and that it “does not apply to the determination of a spousal support award pursuant to Code § 20-107.1,” Huger v. Huger, 16 Va.App. 785, 791 , 433 S.E.2d 255, 259 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fremont Homes, Inc. v. Elmer
green
1 sentence2024See, e.g., Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 719 N.W.2d 809, 818 (Mich. 2006) (affirming dismissal of damages claim because of litigant’s unclean hands, finding “despite its origins, [the clean hands doctrine] is applicable to both equitable and legal damage claims”); Fremont Homes, Inc. v. Elmer, 974 P.2d 952 (Wyo. 1999) (determining the unclean hands doctrine does not apply to legal remedies). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Butler v. Hayes
green
2 sentences1998In Butler v. Hayes, 254 Va. 38 , 487 S.E.2d 229 (1997), the Virginia Supreme Court applied the equitable doctrine of “unclean hands.” In Butler , the defendant purchased a parcel of property. 1998In Butler v. Hayes, 254 Va. 38 , 487 S.E.2d 229 (1997), the Virginia Supreme Court applied the equitable doctrine of “unclean hands.” In Butler , the defendant purchased a parcel of property. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.