10 Virginia opinions name it 3 courts 1991–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Upchurch v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2018See Upchurch, 31 Va. App. at 53 , 521 S.E.2d at 292 (“The justification for the requirement of a pretrial suppression motion is readily apparent in light of the Commonwealth’s limited right to appeal an adverse suppression ruling.”). 2018See Upchurch, 31 Va. App. at 53 , 521 S.E.2d at 292 (“The justification for the requirement of a pretrial suppression motion is readily apparent in light of the Commonwealth’s limited right to appeal an adverse suppression ruling.”). | 1 | 2 |
Wright v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2014Rather, the original justification of the rule, and its application in subsequent cases, demonstrate that its purpose is to “insure [a juror’s] exclusion “from the jury when there is a reasonable doubt about that juror’s ability” to give [the accused] a fair and impartial trial.” Wright, 73 Va. (32 Gratt.) at 943 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Roland W. Browngreen2 sentences2000See also Brown, 490 F.2d at 765-66, 773-78 , cited with approval in Hanson, 14 Va.App. at 188-89 , 416 S.E.2d at 23 , which makes clear that, while a requirement that the victim’s statements be communicated to the defendant may inhere in the exception when the hearsay statements are sought to be introduced in cases involving self-defense, the exception is not otherwise predicated on proof of such communication. . 2000See Hardy v. Commonwealth, 110 Va. 910, 924 , 67 S.E. 522, 527 (1910) (when defendant raises a justification defense, the victim's statement must have been communicated to the defendant for it to be introduced in support of the defense); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 54 , 63 n. 4, 521 S.E.2d 293 , 297 n. 4 (1999) ( en banc ) (accidental death not included among the justification defenses), See also Brown, 490 F.2d at 765-66, 773-78 , cited with approval in Hanson, 14 Va. App. at 188-89 , 416 S.E.2d at 23 , which makes clear that, while a requirement that the victim's statements be communi | 1 | 1 |
Hanson v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2000See Hardy v. Commonwealth, 110 Va. 910, 924 , 67 S.E. 522, 527 (1910) (when defendant raises a justification defense, the victim's statement must have been communicated to the defendant for it to be introduced in support of the defense); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 54 , 63 n. 4, 521 S.E.2d 293 , 297 n. 4 (1999) ( en banc ) (accidental death not included among the justification defenses), See also Brown, 490 F.2d at 765-66, 773-78 , cited with approval in Hanson, 14 Va. App. at 188-89 , 416 S.E.2d at 23 , which makes clear that, while a requirement that the victim's statements be communi 2000See Hardy v. Commonwealth, 110 Va. 910, 924 , 67 S.E. 522, 527 (1910) (when defendant raises a justification defense, the victim's statement must have been communicated to the defendant for it to be introduced in support of the defense); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 54 , 63 n. 4, 521 S.E.2d 293 , 297 n. 4 (1999) ( en banc ) (accidental death not included among the justification defenses), See also Brown, 490 F.2d at 765-66, 773-78 , cited with approval in Hanson, 14 Va. App. at 188-89 , 416 S.E.2d at 23 , which makes clear that, while a requirement that the victim's statements be communi | 1 | 1 |
Hardy v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2000See Hardy v. Commonwealth, 110 Va. 910, 924 , 67 S.E. 522, 527 (1910) (when defendant raises a justification defense, the victim’s statement must have been communicated to the defendant for it to be introduced in support of the defense); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 54 , 63 n. 4, 521 S.E.2d 293 , 297 n. 4 (1999) (en banc) (accidental death not included among the justification defenses). 2000See Hardy v. Commonwealth, 110 Va. 910, 924 , 67 S.E. 522, 527 (1910) (when defendant raises a justification defense, the victim’s statement must have been communicated to the defendant for it to be introduced in support of the defense); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 54 , 63 n. 4, 521 S.E.2d 293 , 297 n. 4 (1999) (en banc) (accidental death not included among the justification defenses). | 1 | 1 |
Ettlinger v. Trustees of Randolph-Macon Collegegreen1 sentence1999The justification for the doctrine of charitable immunity rests on public policy grounds as eloquently stated by Justice Parker in Ettlinger v. Trustees of Randolph-Macon College, 31 F.2d 869, 872 (4th Cir. 1929). | 1 | 1 |
Penny v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1991Thus, hearsay testimony “is not subject to the tests which ordinarily exist to ascertain the testimony’s truth.” Penny v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 494, 498 , 370 S.E.2d 314, 317 (1988). 1991Thus, hearsay testimony “is not subject to the tests which ordinarily exist to ascertain the testimony’s truth.” Penny v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 494, 498 , 370 S.E.2d 314, 317 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hinchey v. Ogden
green
2 sentences2024While the plaintiff in Hinchey argued that the purpose of sovereign immunity is to protect state funds and should therefore not apply to the superintendent as she was not seeking to recover from the treasury, the Court “disagree[d] with Hinchey’s contention that the protection of the public purse is the sole justification for the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Id. at 239 . 2024While the plaintiff in Hinchey argued that the purpose of sovereign immunity is to protect state funds and should therefore not apply to the superintendent as she was not seeking to recover from the treasury, the Court “disagree[d] with Hinchey’s contention that the protection of the public purse is the sole justification for the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Id. at 239 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Green v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2014Phrased differently, the “ancient rule” that “any reasonable doubt as to a juror’s qualifications must be resolved in favor of the accused,” Green, 262 Va. at 117 , 546 S.E.2d at 452 , does not give an accused the final say as to whether a potentially biased juror is removed, but rather, it requires that juror’s dismissal. 2014Phrased differently, the “ancient rule” that “any reasonable doubt as to a juror’s qualifications must be resolved in favor of the accused,” Green, 262 Va. at 117 , 546 S.E.2d at 452 , does not give an accused the final say as to whether a potentially biased juror is removed, but rather, it requires that juror’s dismissal. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Chadwick
red
2 sentences2012The justification for this exception, in part, is that “[o]ne has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one’s residence or as the repository of personal effects,” and because “[i]t travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.” United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 12 , 97 S. Ct. 2476 , 53 L. 2012The justification for this exception, in part, is that “[o]ne has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one’s residence or as the repository of personal effects,” and because “[i]t travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.” United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 12 , 97 S. Ct. 2476 , 53 L. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Taylor v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2000See Hardy v. Commonwealth, 110 Va. 910, 924 , 67 S.E. 522, 527 (1910) (when defendant raises a justification defense, the victim’s statement must have been communicated to the defendant for it to be introduced in support of the defense); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 54 , 63 n. 4, 521 S.E.2d 293 , 297 n. 4 (1999) (en banc) (accidental death not included among the justification defenses). 2000See Hardy v. Commonwealth, 110 Va. 910, 924 , 67 S.E. 522, 527 (1910) (when defendant raises a justification defense, the victim’s statement must have been communicated to the defendant for it to be introduced in support of the defense); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 54 , 63 n. 4, 521 S.E.2d 293 , 297 n. 4 (1999) (en banc) (accidental death not included among the justification defenses). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE v. Murphy
green
2 sentences1995The justification for the rule, we reasoned, is that the wage loss is attributable to the employee’s wrongful act rather than the disability, and in that context, we were “unable to find any provision within the Workers’ Compensation Act which evidences an intent by the legislature to place such an employee in a better position than an uninjured employee who is terminated for cause and by his wrongful act suffers a loss of income.” Id. at 639 , 406 S.E.2d at 193 . 1995The justification for the rule, we reasoned, is that the wage loss is attributable to the employee’s wrongful act rather than the disability, and in that context, we were “unable to find any provision within the Workers’ Compensation Act which evidences an intent by the legislature to place such an employee in a better position than an uninjured employee who is terminated for cause and by his wrongful act suffers a loss of income.” Id. at 639 , 406 S.E.2d at 193 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Evans-Smith v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1991In Evans-Smith v. Commonwealth, this court stated that the strongest justification for the rule prohibiting hearsay testimony is “that the trier of fact has no opportunity to view the witness on cross-examination and to observe the demeanor of the out-of-court declarant to determine reliability.” Id. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.