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.
10 Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mullins v. Com.green2 sentences2005Based on the statute’s prefatory language referring to “any hearing or trial of any criminal offense” and the language of subsection (i) requiring filing with “the clerk of the court hearing the case,” we hold that the statute applies to a proceeding in a single court and that subsection (ii)’s reference to “the clerk” applies to that same clerk referenced in subsection (i) — “the clerk of the court hearing the case.” Although our focus in Mullins was on whose actions could satisfy the statutory mailing requirement, our analysis also implicitly recognized that the duty to satisfy the statutory 2005Based on the statute’s prefatory language referring to “any hearing or trial of any criminal offense” and the language of subsection (i) requiring filing with “the clerk of the court hearing the case,” we hold that the statute applies to a proceeding in a single court and that subsection (ii)’s reference to “the clerk” applies to that same clerk referenced in subsection (i) — “the clerk of the court hearing the case.” Although our focus in Mullins was on whose actions could satisfy the statutory mailing requirement, our analysis also implicitly recognized that the duty to satisfy the statutory | 4 | 5 |
Allen v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2005In analyzing the filing requirement, we have held Code § 19.2-187® does not authorize filing in the general district court as a substitute for the proviso that the certificates be filed in the circuit court at least seven days prior to the hearing in the circuit court; rather it specifically requires the certificate to “be filed with the clerk of the court hearing the case at least seven days prior to the hearing or trial.” Allen v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 657, 664 , 353 S.E.2d 162, 166 (1987) (quoting former Code § 19.2-187 (1983 Repl. 2005In analyzing the filing requirement, we have held Code § 19.2-187® does not authorize filing in the general district court as a substitute for the proviso that the certificates be filed in the circuit court at least seven days prior to the hearing in the circuit court; rather it specifically requires the certificate to “be filed with the clerk of the court hearing the case at least seven days prior to the hearing or trial.” Allen v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 657, 664 , 353 S.E.2d 162, 166 (1987) (quoting former Code § 19.2-187 (1983 Repl. | 3 | 3 |
Gray v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1997(Emphasis added.) It is well established that "§ 19.2-187 should be construed strictly against the Commonwealth and in favor of the accused, since `it undertakes to make admissible evidence which otherwise might be subject to a valid hearsay objection.'" Mullins v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 372, 374 , 404 S.E.2d 237, 238 (1991) (quoting Gray v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 943, 945 , 265 S.E.2d 705, 706 (1980)). 1997(Emphasis added.) It is well established that "§ 19.2-187 should be construed strictly against the Commonwealth and in favor of the accused, since `it undertakes to make admissible evidence which otherwise might be subject to a valid hearsay objection.'" Mullins v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 372, 374 , 404 S.E.2d 237, 238 (1991) (quoting Gray v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 943, 945 , 265 S.E.2d 705, 706 (1980)). | 2 | 2 |
Basfield v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2005The request to the clerk shall be on a form prescribed by the Supreme Court and filed with the clerk at least ten days prior to trial. *135 2002 Va. Acts, ch. 832. 2 This statute “imposes a condition for the exoneration of an otherwise hearsay document from the application of the hearsay rule, thus making that document admissible.” Basfield v. Commonwealth, 11 Va.App. 122, 124 , 398 S.E.2d 80, 81 (1990). 2005The request to the clerk shall be on a form prescribed by the Supreme Court and filed with the clerk at least ten days prior to trial. *135 2002 Va. Acts, ch. 832. 2 This statute “imposes a condition for the exoneration of an otherwise hearsay document from the application of the hearsay rule, thus making that document admissible.” Basfield v. Commonwealth, 11 Va.App. 122, 124 , 398 S.E.2d 80, 81 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Rhem v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Because “‘[a] document is considered filed when delivered to the clerk for filing,’” Waller, 27 Va. App. at 75 , 497 S.E.2d at 510 (quoting Rhem, 820 S.W.2d at 947 ), and the record supports a finding that the certificate of analysis was delivered to the circuit court for filing, and was in fact filed in the proper file, no later than August 6, 2002, we hold the trial court did not err in admitting the certificate of analysis into evidence at appellant’s trial on September 10, 2003. 2004The statute does not authorize filing in the general district court as a substitute for the proviso that the certificates be filed in the circuit court at least seven days prior to the hearing in the circuit court; rather it specifically requires the certificate to “be filed with the clerk of the court hearing the case at least seven days prior to the hearing or trial.” -2- Allen v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 657, 664 , 353 S.E.2d 162, 166 (1987) (quoting Code § 19.2-187). “‘A document is considered filed when delivered to the clerk for filing.’” Waller, 27 Va. App. at 75 , 497 S.E.2d at 510 (qu | 1 | 1 |
Coleman v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2001"Code § 19.2-187 should be construed strictly against the Commonwealth and in favor of the accused because 'it undertakes to make admissible evidence which otherwise might be subject to a valid hearsay objection.'" Coleman v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 768, 772-73 , 501 S.E.2d 461, 463 (1998) (quoting Mullins v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 372, 374 , 404 S.E.2d 237, 238 (1991)). 2001"Code § 19.2-187 should be construed strictly against the Commonwealth and in favor of the accused because 'it undertakes to make admissible evidence which otherwise might be subject to a valid hearsay objection.'" Coleman v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 768, 772-73 , 501 S.E.2d 461, 463 (1998) (quoting Mullins v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 372, 374 , 404 S.E.2d 237, 238 (1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Stokes v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1993He further contended that the Commonwealth failed to “show who received” the evidence for analysis or “to prove what happened while it was in the lab.” Code § 19.2-187 provides, inter alia, that a certificate of analysis shall be admissible in evidence “provided (i) the certificate of analysis is filed with the clerk of the court hearing the case at least seven days prior to the hearing or trial and (ii) a copy of such certificate is mailed or delivered ... to counsel of record for the accused at least seven days prior to the hearing or trial upon request of such counsel.” This statute “sets f 1993He further contended that the Commonwealth failed to “show who received” the evidence for analysis or “to prove what happened while it was in the lab.” Code § 19.2-187 provides, inter alia, that a certificate of analysis shall be admissible in evidence “provided (i) the certificate of analysis is filed with the clerk of the court hearing the case at least seven days prior to the hearing or trial and (ii) a copy of such certificate is mailed or delivered ... to counsel of record for the accused at least seven days prior to the hearing or trial upon request of such counsel.” This statute “sets f | 1 | 1 |
Mostyn v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1993He further contended that the Commonwealth failed to “show who received” the evidence for analysis or “to prove what happened while it was in the lab.” Code § 19.2-187 provides, inter alia, that a certificate of analysis shall be admissible in evidence “provided (i) the certificate of analysis is filed with the clerk of the court hearing the case at least seven days prior to the hearing or trial and (ii) a copy of such certificate is mailed or delivered ... to counsel of record for the accused at least seven days prior to the hearing or trial upon request of such counsel.” This statute “sets f 1993He further contended that the Commonwealth failed to “show who received” the evidence for analysis or “to prove what happened while it was in the lab.” Code § 19.2-187 provides, inter alia, that a certificate of analysis shall be admissible in evidence “provided (i) the certificate of analysis is filed with the clerk of the court hearing the case at least seven days prior to the hearing or trial and (ii) a copy of such certificate is mailed or delivered ... to counsel of record for the accused at least seven days prior to the hearing or trial upon request of such counsel.” This statute “sets f | 1 | 1 |
Branch v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1993Well established “principles of statutory construction require” that we “ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent,” and the “plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always preferred.” Branch v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 836, 839 , 419 S.E.2d 422, 424 (1992). 1993Well established “principles of statutory construction require” that we “ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent,” and the “plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always preferred.” Branch v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 836, 839 , 419 S.E.2d 422, 424 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cregger v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2006Further, the Commonwealth maintained that appellant’s rights to cross-examination and confrontation were preserved under 2 Appellant admits that the breath sample was properly taken. 3 The statement of facts does not reveal when appellant was provided a copy of the certificate. 4 Code § 18.2-268.9 provides in relevant part, “This certificate, when attested by the individual conducting the breath test, shall be admissible in any court in any criminal or civil proceeding as evidence of the facts therein stated and of the results of such analysis.” Code § 19.2-187 requires the Commonwealth to fil 2006Further, the Commonwealth maintained that appellant’s rights to cross-examination and confrontation were preserved under 2 Appellant admits that the breath sample was properly taken. 3 The statement of facts does not reveal when appellant was provided a copy of the certificate. 4 Code § 18.2-268.9 provides in relevant part, “This certificate, when attested by the individual conducting the breath test, shall be admissible in any court in any criminal or civil proceeding as evidence of the facts therein stated and of the results of such analysis.” Code § 19.2-187 requires the Commonwealth to fil | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Waller v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2004The statute does not authorize filing in the general district court as a substitute for the proviso that the certificates be filed in the circuit court at least seven days prior to the hearing in the circuit court; rather it specifically requires the certificate to “be filed with the clerk of the court hearing the case at least seven days prior to the hearing or trial.” -2- Allen v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 657, 664 , 353 S.E.2d 162, 166 (1987) (quoting Code § 19.2-187). “‘A document is considered filed when delivered to the clerk for filing.’” Waller, 27 Va. App. at 75 , 497 S.E.2d at 510 (qu 2004The statute does not authorize filing in the general district court as a substitute for the proviso that the certificates be filed in the circuit court at least seven days prior to the hearing in the circuit court; rather it specifically requires the certificate to “be filed with the clerk of the court hearing the case at least seven days prior to the hearing or trial.” -2- Allen v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 657, 664 , 353 S.E.2d 162, 166 (1987) (quoting Code § 19.2-187). “‘A document is considered filed when delivered to the clerk for filing.’” Waller, 27 Va. App. at 75 , 497 S.E.2d at 510 (qu | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Zirkle v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1992See Mullins, 12 Va. App. at 374 , 404 S.E.2d at 238 . 3 In legal “parlance,” character and reputation are often used interchangeably, but “character is what one really is; reputation is what others believe him to be.” Id. at 871, 55 S.E.2d at 29 (quoting Henry Ward Beecher). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.