cross-assignment error in Virginia

2015Additionally, in a cross-assignment of error, appellee argues that the Bristol Circuit Court erred by failing “to enforce the appeal bond, because this Court’s denial of [appellee’s] mootness motion[, in the 2011 appeals to this Court,] is the law of the case on payment of the arrearage.” - 17 - “The [law of the case] doctrine, briefly stated, is this: Where there have been two appeals in the same case, between the same parties, and the facts are the same, nothing decided on the first appeal can be re-examined on a second appeal.” Rowe v. Rowe, 33 Va. App. 250, 262 , 532 S.E.2d 908, 914 (2000)

2015Additionally, in a cross-assignment of error, appellee argues that the Bristol Circuit Court erred by failing “to enforce the appeal bond, because this Court’s denial of [appellee’s] mootness motion[, in the 2011 appeals to this Court,] is the law of the case on payment of the arrearage.” - 17 - “The [law of the case] doctrine, briefly stated, is this: Where there have been two appeals in the same case, between the same parties, and the facts are the same, nothing decided on the first appeal can be re-examined on a second appeal.” Rowe v. Rowe, 33 Va. App. 250, 262 , 532 S.E.2d 908, 914 (2000)

2015Indeed, “[t]o allow a trial judge to disregard the holding of a previous panel would be an inefficient administration of justice, increasing the ‘labor of appellate courts and the costs to litigation.’” Id. (quoting Steinman v. Clinchfield Coal Corp., 121 Va. 611, 621 , 93 S.E. 684, 687 (1917)).

2015Indeed, “[t]o allow a trial judge to disregard the holding of a previous panel would be an inefficient administration of justice, increasing the ‘labor of appellate courts and the costs to litigation.’” Id. (quoting Steinman v. Clinchfield Coal Corp., 121 Va. 611, 621 , 93 S.E. 684, 687 (1917)).

2015After following these instructions, the Grayson Circuit Court should disburse the appeal bond in accordance with the rights of the parties. - 19 - plaintiff.” Virginia Concrete Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax Cnty., 197 Va. 821, 825 , 91 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1956) (citing 149 A.L.R. at 553, 625).

2015After following these instructions, the Grayson Circuit Court should disburse the appeal bond in accordance with the rights of the parties. - 19 - plaintiff.” Virginia Concrete Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax Cnty., 197 Va. 821, 825 , 91 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1956) (citing 149 A.L.R. at 553, 625).

2019“In determining whether to make such an award, the Court of Appeals shall not be limited to a consideration of whether a party’s position on an issue was - 17 - frivolous or lacked substantial merit but shall consider all the equities of the case.” Rule 5A:30(b)(3); see also O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 23 Va. App. 690, 695 (1996).

1924Co., 105 Va. 72, 76, 80 , 53 S. E. 3 .” There was a cross assignment of error by the defendant with respect to an instruction given at the instance of the plaintiff, but the objection to that instruction was not made the subject of any exception, and it was conceded at the argument of the ease that the cross assignment could not be availed of.

1924Co., 105 Va. 72, 76, 80 , 53 S. E. 3 .” There was a cross assignment of error by the defendant with respect to an instruction given at the instance of the plaintiff, but the objection to that instruction was not made the subject of any exception, and it was conceded at the argument of the ease that the cross assignment could not be availed of.