10 Virginia opinions name it 5 courts 1986–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hudson v. Barhamgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., Hudson v. Barham, 101 Va. 63, 67 (1903) (holding that a trustee in a deed of trust should “ascertain the actual debt which ought to be raised by the sale” of property, and a debtor has a right to such information). 9 Although Refund Recovery unquestionably bore the burden of proving its petition, the circuit court should have allowed it to present evidence about the lack of outstanding debt, rather than dismissing the entire case after a scheduled hearing on a motion for default judgment. - 10 - Id. 2026See, e.g., Hudson v. Barham, 101 Va. 63, 67 (1903) (holding that a trustee in a deed of trust should “ascertain the actual debt which ought to be raised by the sale” of property, and a debtor has a right to such information). 9 Although Refund Recovery unquestionably bore the burden of proving its petition, the circuit court should have allowed it to present evidence about the lack of outstanding debt, rather than dismissing the entire case after a scheduled hearing on a motion for default judgment. - 10 - Id. | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2007Nelson v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 716, 723-26 , 589 S.E.2d 23, 26-28 (2003) (court may rule on materiality after issuance of subpoena and may limit access to such records until it rules on materiality issues and undue prejudice), see Boyd v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2038-97-3, 1998 Va. App. LEXIS 617 , *3 (Dec. 8,1998) (hearing held after Court received documents). 2007Nelson v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 716, 723-26 , 589 S.E.2d 23, 26-28 (2003) (court may rule on materiality after issuance of subpoena and may limit access to such records until it rules on materiality issues and undue prejudice), see Boyd v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2038-97-3, 1998 Va. App. LEXIS 617 , *3 (Dec. 8,1998) (hearing held after Court received documents). | 1 | 1 |
Eddine v. Eddinegreen2 sentences1999The fact that counsel had notice is further demonstrated by the fact that counsel sought to withdraw by letter dated only three days prior to the scheduled hearing for the presentation of the final decree. 1 An elementary requirement of due process in any proceeding is “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Such notice “must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance.” Eddine v. Eddine, 12 Va.App. 760, 763 , 406 S.E.2d 914, 91 1999The fact that counsel had notice is further demonstrated by the fact that counsel sought to withdraw by letter dated only three days prior to the scheduled hearing for the presentation of the final decree. 1 An elementary requirement of due process in any proceeding is “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Such notice “must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance.” Eddine v. Eddine, 12 Va.App. 760, 763 , 406 S.E.2d 914, 91 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tuck v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 280 , 623 S.E.2d at 435 . 2007Id. at 280 , 623 S.E.2d at 435 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Matter of Hunt
green
2 sentences1987In re Hunt, 367 A.2d 155 (D.C. 1986In re Hunt, 367 A.2d 155 (D.C. | 2 | 1986–1987 |
Mabe v. Wythe County Department of Social Services
green
1 sentence2025And in Mabe, one of the parents did not attend a scheduled hearing in a termination of parental rights proceeding because she was serving an active sentence in federal custody. 53 Va. App. at 328 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Edmonds v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Basile v. American Filter Service, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1999The fact that counsel had notice is further demonstrated by the fact that counsel sought to withdraw by letter dated only three days prior to the scheduled hearing for the presentation of the final decree. 1 An elementary requirement of due process in any proceeding is “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Such notice “must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance.” Eddine v. Eddine, 12 Va.App. 760, 763 , 406 S.E.2d 914, 91 1999The fact that counsel had notice is further demonstrated by the fact that counsel sought to withdraw by letter dated only three days prior to the scheduled hearing for the presentation of the final decree. 1 An elementary requirement of due process in any proceeding is “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Such notice “must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance.” Eddine v. Eddine, 12 Va.App. 760, 763 , 406 S.E.2d 914, 91 | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.