10 Virginia opinions name it 7 courts 1986–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Messina v. Burdengreen2 sentences1996That test set out in James and as further enunciated in Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301 (1984), requires the court to consider four factors: (1) The nature of the function performed by the employee; (2) The extent of the state’s interest and involvement in the function; (3) The degree of control and direction exercised by the state over the employee; and (4) whether the act complained of involved the use of judgment and discretion. 1995Whether sovereign immunity applies in instances of alleged negligent acts by governmental employees is a question tested against a four part test listed in Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301 (1984). | 1 | 3 |
Glenmar Cinestate, Inc. v. Farrellgreen1 sentence2012The Nature of the Function The case of Glenmar Cinestate v. Farrel, 223 Va. 728, 729 (1982), held that directing traffic is a public duty even when the police officer was engaged “off-duty” by a private employer. | 1 | 1 |
Heider v. Clemonsgreen2 sentences1991See First Virginia Bank-Colonial v. Baker, 225 Va. 72 (1983); Heider v. Clemons, 241 Va. 143, 145 (1991). 1991Again, in Heider v. Clemons, 241 Va. 143 (1991), the Supreme Court declined to employ the four part test where a deputy sheriff was held to be negligent in the operation of an automobile. | 1 | 1 |
Wynn v. Gandygreen2 sentences1991The Court made a passing reference to the four part test before saying that sovereign immunity does not apply to "the performance of duties which do not involve judgment or discretion in their performance . . ." Heider at 145 , quoting Wynn v. Gandy, 170 Va. 590, 595 (1938). 1991The Court made a passing reference to the four part test before saying that sovereign immunity does not apply to "the performance of duties which do not involve judgment or discretion in their performance . . ." Heider at 145 , quoting Wynn v. Gandy, 170 Va. 590, 595 (1938). | 1 | 1 |
First Virginia Bank-Colonial v. Bakergreen1 sentence1991See First Virginia Bank-Colonial v. Baker, 225 Va. 72 (1983); Heider v. Clemons, 241 Va. 143, 145 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
James v. Jane
green
2 sentences2007In the case of James v. Jane, 221 Va. 43 , 282 S.E.2d 864 (1980), the Supreme Court set forth a four part test to determine the applicability of sovereign immunity: (1) The nature of the function performed by the employee; (2) The extent of the State’s interest and involvement in that function; (3) The degree of control and direction exercised by the State over the employee; (4) Whether the act complained of involved the use of judgment and discretion. 2007In the case of James v. Jane, 221 Va. 43 , 282 S.E.2d 864 (1980), the Supreme Court set forth a four part test to determine the applicability of sovereign immunity: (1) The nature of the function performed by the employee; (2) The extent of the State’s interest and involvement in that function; (3) The degree of control and direction exercised by the State over the employee; (4) Whether the act complained of involved the use of judgment and discretion. | 4 | 1991–2007 |
Barker v. Wingo
green
1 sentence2025Finally, the court ruled that Martin’s constitutional speedy trial claim failed under the four- part test enunciated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Colby v. Boyden
green
1 sentence2012In Colby, supra, at pp. 125 and 129, the Supreme Court established a four part test to determine whether a given defendant is entitled to immunity: “(1) the nature of the function the employee performs; (2) the extent of the government’s interest and involvement in the function; (3) the degree of direction and control exercised over the employee by the government; and (4) whether the act in question involved the exercise of discretion and judgment.” We need to address each prong of the test. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
T v. T
green
1 sentence2000In determining whether the requirements for equitable estoppel have been met, the Court will apply the four part test first articulated in T. v. T., 216 Va. at 873 , and affirmed in Nargi, Tidewater, Bruce, and Guzy . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bowers v. COM., DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSP.
green
1 sentence1991Defendants cite Bowers v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 245 (1983), in support of their argument that the four part analysis of James v. Jane, 221 Va. 43 (1980), should be applied to the Defendants and their actions. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Womack v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences1986In the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Demurrer, Defendant argues that the Motion for Judgment fails to state facts sufficient to satisfy the four part test set forth in Womack v. Eldridge, 215 Va. 338 (1974). 1986This argument is faulty in that the Womack test is expressly limited to cases of "emotional distress, unaccompanied by physical injury . . . ." ( 215 Va. 338, 342 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.