10 Virginia opinions name it 4 courts 1987–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dunbar Group, LLC v. Tignorgreen1 sentence2023See Dunbar Grp., LLC v. Tignor, 267 Va. 361, 367 (2004) (“Because this statutory language is plain and unambiguous, we apply the plain meaning of that language.”); Michael V. | 1 | 1 |
Kenneth W. Hardwick v. Richard L. Duggergreen1 sentence2008See Christopher v. Florida, 824 F.2d 836, 844-45 (11th Cir.1987) (“While we recognize that Edwards and Bradshaw are right to counsel cases, and that [Michigan v.] Mosley [, 423 U.S. 96 , 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975),] governs the admissibility of statements made following the suspect’s invocation of his right to cut off questioning, Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 , 96 S.Ct. at 326 , we accept the State’s implicit claim that there are situations where the 'initiation' test of Edwards/Bradshaw governs the admissibility of statements made after a suspect has invoked his right to terminate questi | 1 | 1 |
Michigan v. Mosleygreen2 sentences2008See Christopher v. Florida, 824 F.2d 836, 844-45 (11th Cir.1987) (“While we recognize that Edwards and Bradshaw are right to counsel cases, and that [Michigan v.] Mosley [, 423 U.S. 96 , 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975),] governs the admissibility of statements made following the suspect’s invocation of his right to cut off questioning, Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 , 96 S.Ct. at 326 , we accept the State’s implicit claim that there are situations where the 'initiation' test of Edwards/Bradshaw governs the admissibility of statements made after a suspect has invoked his right to terminate questi 2008See Christopher v. Florida, 824 F.2d 836, 844-45 (11th Cir.1987) (“While we recognize that Edwards and Bradshaw are right to counsel cases, and that [Michigan v.] Mosley [, 423 U.S. 96 , 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975),] governs the admissibility of statements made following the suspect’s invocation of his right to cut off questioning, Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 , 96 S.Ct. at 326 , we accept the State’s implicit claim that there are situations where the 'initiation' test of Edwards/Bradshaw governs the admissibility of statements made after a suspect has invoked his right to terminate questi | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Thongsophaporngreen1 sentence2008See also United States v. Thongsophaporn, 503 F.3d 51, 56-57 (1st Cir.2007) (applying Bradshaw reinitiation test following an invocation of the right to remain silent under Mosley). 2 . | 1 | 1 |
Vissicchio v. Vissicchiogreen2 sentences2003He argues that a waiver of current spousal support contains an implicit waiver of future spousal support. "[W]here there is no bar to the right of spousal support 'it is reversible error for the trial court, upon request of either party, to fail to make a reservation in the decree of the right to receive spousal support in the event of a change of circumstances,' even though, at the time of the decree, neither party needed support." Vissicchio v. Vissicchio, 27 Va. App. 240, 254 , 498 S.E.2d 425, 432 (1998) (quoting Blank v. Blank, 10 Va. App. 1, 4 , 389 S.E.2d 723, 724 (1990) (quoting Bacon v 2003He argues that a waiver of current spousal support contains an implicit waiver of future spousal support. "[W]here there is no bar to the right of spousal support 'it is reversible error for the trial court, upon request of either party, to fail to make a reservation in the decree of the right to receive spousal support in the event of a change of circumstances,' even though, at the time of the decree, neither party needed support." Vissicchio v. Vissicchio, 27 Va. App. 240, 254 , 498 S.E.2d 425, 432 (1998) (quoting Blank v. Blank, 10 Va. App. 1, 4 , 389 S.E.2d 723, 724 (1990) (quoting Bacon v | 1 | 1 |
Bacon v. Bacongreen2 sentences2003He argues that a waiver of current spousal support contains an implicit waiver of future spousal support. "[W]here there is no bar to the right of spousal support 'it is reversible error for the trial court, upon request of either party, to fail to make a reservation in the decree of the right to receive spousal support in the event of a change of circumstances,' even though, at the time of the decree, neither party needed support." Vissicchio v. Vissicchio, 27 Va. App. 240, 254 , 498 S.E.2d 425, 432 (1998) (quoting Blank v. Blank, 10 Va. App. 1, 4 , 389 S.E.2d 723, 724 (1990) (quoting Bacon v 2003He argues that a waiver of current spousal support contains an implicit waiver of future spousal support. "[W]here there is no bar to the right of spousal support 'it is reversible error for the trial court, upon request of either party, to fail to make a reservation in the decree of the right to receive spousal support in the event of a change of circumstances,' even though, at the time of the decree, neither party needed support." Vissicchio v. Vissicchio, 27 Va. App. 240, 254 , 498 S.E.2d 425, 432 (1998) (quoting Blank v. Blank, 10 Va. App. 1, 4 , 389 S.E.2d 723, 724 (1990) (quoting Bacon v | 1 | 1 |
Blank v. Blankgreen2 sentences2003He argues that a waiver of current spousal support contains an implicit waiver of future spousal support. "[W]here there is no bar to the right of spousal support 'it is reversible error for the trial court, upon request of either party, to fail to make a reservation in the decree of the right to receive spousal support in the event of a change of circumstances,' even though, at the time of the decree, neither party needed support." Vissicchio v. Vissicchio, 27 Va. App. 240, 254 , 498 S.E.2d 425, 432 (1998) (quoting Blank v. Blank, 10 Va. App. 1, 4 , 389 S.E.2d 723, 724 (1990) (quoting Bacon v 2003He argues that a waiver of current spousal support contains an implicit waiver of future spousal support. "[W]here there is no bar to the right of spousal support 'it is reversible error for the trial court, upon request of either party, to fail to make a reservation in the decree of the right to receive spousal support in the event of a change of circumstances,' even though, at the time of the decree, neither party needed support." Vissicchio v. Vissicchio, 27 Va. App. 240, 254 , 498 S.E.2d 425, 432 (1998) (quoting Blank v. Blank, 10 Va. App. 1, 4 , 389 S.E.2d 723, 724 (1990) (quoting Bacon v | 1 | 1 |
Board of Supervisors v. King Land Corp.green2 sentences1998In support of this position, the Board relies upon the case of Board of Supervisors v. King Land Corp., 238 Va. 97 (1989). 1998The Supreme Court held that where “apublic official is charged by statute to perform a duty, but the statute is silent as to the express time by which the duty must be performed, there is an implicit requirement that its mandate be fulfilled within a reasonable time” Id. at 104 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Maye v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1995Cf. Maye v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 48, 49 , 189 S.E.2d 350, 351 (1972) (holding that scienter will be read into the statute by the court when it appears the legislature implicitly intended that it must be proved). 1995Cf. Maye v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 48, 49 , 189 S.E.2d 350, 351 (1972) (holding that scienter will be read into the statute by the court when it appears the legislature implicitly intended that it must be proved). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Laurisch v. Pohlgreen1 sentence1987See Andrews v. Shepherd, 201 Va. at 416 , 111 S.E.2d at 282 ; see also State v. Pohl, 8 N.W.2d 227, 231 (Minn. 1943). | 1 | 1 |
Andrews v. Shepherdgreen2 sentences1987See Andrews v. Shepherd, 201 Va. at 416 , 111 S.E.2d at 282 ; see also State v. Pohl, 8 N.W.2d 227, 231 (Minn. 1943). 1987See Andrews v. Shepherd, 201 Va. at 416 , 111 S.E.2d at 282 ; see also State v. Pohl, 8 N.W.2d 227, 231 (Minn. 1943). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stahl v. State
green
1 sentence2026Indeed, “[r]eliability is an implicit requirement of Rule 803(15).” Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Moyer Reed Plaster v. United States
green
1 sentence2008Plaster, 789 F.2d at 293 . [5] The concurrence criticizes our holding for "simply assum[ing] that the proposed plea agreement was an implicit waiver of immunity" without citing any authority or explaining why. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Attorney General of Virginia v. Washington Gas Light Co.
green
2 sentences2003Commonwealth v. Washington Gas Light Co., 221 Va. 315, 323 , 269 S.E.2d 820 (1980). 2003Commonwealth v. Washington Gas Light Co., 221 Va. 315, 323 , 269 S.E.2d 820 (1980). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
King Land Corp. v. Board of Supervisors
green
2 sentences1989We agree with the comment contained in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals: "Where, as here, a public official is charged by statute to perform a duty, but the statute is silent as to the express time by which the duty must be performed, there is an implicit requirement that its mandate be fulfilled within a reasonable time." King Land Corp., 4 Va. App. at 607 , 359 S.E.2d at 828 . 1989We agree with the comment contained in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals: "Where, as here, a public official is charged by statute to perform a duty, but the statute is silent as to the express time by which the duty must be performed, there is an implicit requirement that its mandate be fulfilled within a reasonable time." King Land Corp., 4 Va. App. at 607 , 359 S.E.2d at 828 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.