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 2004–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Armes v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025“Further, it is well established that ‘[t]he completeness of the identification goes to the weight’ afforded ‘the evidence rather than its admissibility,’ with the responsibility of determining the threshold question of admissibility resting with the trial court.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Armes v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 189, 193 (1986)). 2023“Further, it is well established that ‘[t]he completeness of the identification goes to the weight’ afforded ‘the evidence rather than its admissibility,’ with the responsibility of determining the threshold question of admissibility resting with the trial court.” Id. (quoting Armes v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 189, 193 (1986)). | 3 | 3 |
Witt v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2017See id. at 820-21 , 554 S.E.2d at 87 ; see also Charles E. 2017See id. at 820-21 , 554 S.E.2d at 87 ; see also Charles E. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bloom v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2025“Although the type of evidence used to prove the identity of the person making the statement may vary based in part upon the medium used to convey the message, the governing legal standard is the same—proof by a preponderance of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both.” Id. 2022“Although the type of evidence used to prove the identity of the person making the statement may vary based in part upon the medium used to convey the message, the governing legal standard is the same—proof by a preponderance of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both.” Id. 3 We assume without deciding that this argument is properly preserved in compliance with Rule 5A:18 and argued in compliance with Rule 5A:20(e). -6- Here, the evidence was sufficient, under the applicable “preponderance of the evidence” standard, to conclude that Perry made the statements containe | 4 | 2014–2025 |
Hassan Christopher Atkins v. Commonwealth of Virginia
green
2 sentences2024“Although the type of evidence used to prove the identity of the person making the statement may vary based in part upon the medium used to convey the message, the governing legal standard is the same—proof by a preponderance of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both.” Atkins, 68 Va. App. at 9 ; see also Charles E. 2023“Although the type of evidence used to prove the identity of the person making the statement may vary based in part upon the medium used to convey the message, the governing legal standard is the same—proof by a preponderance of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both.” Atkins, 68 Va. App. at 9 . | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Mattaponi Indian Tribe v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2004The 1997 version of the State Water Control Law authorized the SWCB to issue a permit if it determined that “the proposed project ‘is consistent with the provisions of the [federal Act] and will protect instream beneficial uses.’ ” Mat *711 taponi Indian Tribe, 261 Va. at 377 , 541 S.E.2d at 925 -26 (quoting Code § 62.1-44.15:5(B)). 2004The 1997 version of the State Water Control Law authorized the SWCB to issue a permit if it determined that “the proposed project ‘is consistent with the provisions of the [federal Act] and will protect instream beneficial uses.’ ” Mat *711 taponi Indian Tribe, 261 Va. at 377 , 541 S.E.2d at 925 -26 (quoting Code § 62.1-44.15:5(B)). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
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.