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.
9 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2023Because the admission of such statements is generally prohibited, the “party seeking to have a hearsay declaration admitted at trial” bears the burden of “‘clearly show[ing]’ that the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.” Swanson v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 147, 156 (2010) (quoting Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 (1984)). 2011The proponent “‘must clearly show’ that the evidence falls within an exception to the rule excluding hearsay,” Jones v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 231, 236 , 563 S.E.2d 364, 366 (2002) (quoting Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 , 318 S.E.2d 382, 386 (1984)), and in this regard, “‘the burden of persuasion is proof by the preponderance of the evidence,’” id. (quoting Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 61, 64-65 , 389 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1990)). “‘Hearsay evidence is testimony in court, or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the trut | 5 | 5 |
Lynch v. Com.green2 sentences2025“A party may manifest adoption of a statement made by another in any number of ways, including words, conduct, or silence.” Id. - 11 - However, “[a] party relying upon an exception to the hearsay rule for the admissibility of evidence bears the burden of persuading the court that the evidence falls within the exception.” Id. at 207-08 . 2025“A party may manifest adoption of a statement made by another in any number of ways, including words, conduct, or silence.” Id. - 11 - However, “[a] party relying upon an exception to the hearsay rule for the admissibility of evidence bears the burden of persuading the court that the evidence falls within the exception.” Id. at 207-08 . | 2 | 3 |
Rabeiro v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2011The proponent “‘must clearly show’ that the evidence falls within an exception to the rule excluding hearsay,” Jones v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 231, 236 , 563 S.E.2d 364, 366 (2002) (quoting Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 , 318 S.E.2d 382, 386 (1984)), and in this regard, “‘the burden of persuasion is proof by the preponderance of the evidence,’” id. (quoting Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 61, 64-65 , 389 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1990)). “‘Hearsay evidence is testimony in court, or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the trut 2011The proponent “‘must clearly show’ that the evidence falls within an exception to the rule excluding hearsay,” Jones v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 231, 236 , 563 S.E.2d 364, 366 (2002) (quoting Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 , 318 S.E.2d 382, 386 (1984)), and in this regard, “‘the burden of persuasion is proof by the preponderance of the evidence,’” id. (quoting Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 61, 64-65 , 389 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1990)). “‘Hearsay evidence is testimony in court, or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the trut | 2 | 2 |
Neal v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2005See Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 61, 64-65 , 389 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1990) (“On factual issues relating to the admissibility of evidence, the burden of persuasion is proof by a preponderance of the evidence.”); see also Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 , 318 S.E.2d 382, 386 (1984) (noting that the party seeking to have a hearsay declaration admitted “must clearly show” that the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule); Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 416, 420-21 , 425 S.E.2d 521, 524 (1992) (“[T]he party seeking to rely upon an exception to the hearsay rule has the burden of 2005See Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 61, 64-65 , 389 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1990) (“On factual issues relating to the admissibility of evidence, the burden of persuasion is proof by a preponderance of the evidence.”); see also Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 , 318 S.E.2d 382, 386 (1984) (noting that the party seeking to have a hearsay declaration admitted “must clearly show” that the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule); Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 416, 420-21 , 425 S.E.2d 521, 524 (1992) (“[T]he party seeking to rely upon an exception to the hearsay rule has the burden of | 2 | 2 |
Swanson v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2023Because the admission of such statements is generally prohibited, the “party seeking to have a hearsay declaration admitted at trial” bears the burden of “‘clearly show[ing]’ that the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.” Swanson v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 147, 156 (2010) (quoting Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2011The proponent “‘must clearly show’ that the evidence falls within an exception to the rule excluding hearsay,” Jones v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 231, 236 , 563 S.E.2d 364, 366 (2002) (quoting Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 , 318 S.E.2d 382, 386 (1984)), and in this regard, “‘the burden of persuasion is proof by the preponderance of the evidence,’” id. (quoting Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 61, 64-65 , 389 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1990)). “‘Hearsay evidence is testimony in court, or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the trut 2011The proponent “‘must clearly show’ that the evidence falls within an exception to the rule excluding hearsay,” Jones v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 231, 236 , 563 S.E.2d 364, 366 (2002) (quoting Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 , 318 S.E.2d 382, 386 (1984)), and in this regard, “‘the burden of persuasion is proof by the preponderance of the evidence,’” id. (quoting Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 61, 64-65 , 389 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1990)). “‘Hearsay evidence is testimony in court, or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the trut | 1 | 1 |
\Automatic\" Sprinkler Corp. of America v. Coley & Petersengreen2 sentences2011“Under the modern Shopbook Rule, adopted in Virginia, verified regular entries may be admitted into evidence without requiring proof from the regular observers or record keepers.” “Automatic” Sprinkler Corp. v. Coley & Peterson, Inc., 219 Va. 781, 792 , 250 S.E.2d 765, 773 (1979) (citing Neeley v. Johnson, 215 Va. 565, 571 , 211 S.E.2d 100, 106 (1975); duPont Co. v. Universal Moulded Prods. 2011“Under the modern Shopbook Rule, adopted in Virginia, verified regular entries may be admitted into evidence without requiring proof from the regular observers or record keepers.” “Automatic” Sprinkler Corp. v. Coley & Peterson, Inc., 219 Va. 781, 792 , 250 S.E.2d 765, 773 (1979) (citing Neeley v. Johnson, 215 Va. 565, 571 , 211 S.E.2d 100, 106 (1975); duPont Co. v. Universal Moulded Prods. | 1 | 1 |
Stevenson v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2011The proponent “‘must clearly show’ that the evidence falls within an exception to the rule excluding hearsay,” Jones v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 231, 236 , 563 S.E.2d 364, 366 (2002) (quoting Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 , 318 S.E.2d 382, 386 (1984)), and in this regard, “‘the burden of persuasion is proof by the preponderance of the evidence,’” id. (quoting Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 61, 64-65 , 389 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1990)). “‘Hearsay evidence is testimony in court, or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the trut 2011The proponent “‘must clearly show’ that the evidence falls within an exception to the rule excluding hearsay,” Jones v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 231, 236 , 563 S.E.2d 364, 366 (2002) (quoting Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 , 318 S.E.2d 382, 386 (1984)), and in this regard, “‘the burden of persuasion is proof by the preponderance of the evidence,’” id. (quoting Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 61, 64-65 , 389 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1990)). “‘Hearsay evidence is testimony in court, or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the trut | 1 | 1 |
Tatum v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2011The proponent “‘must clearly show’ that the evidence falls within an exception to the rule excluding hearsay,” Jones v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 231, 236 , 563 S.E.2d 364, 366 (2002) (quoting Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 , 318 S.E.2d 382, 386 (1984)), and in this regard, “‘the burden of persuasion is proof by the preponderance of the evidence,’” id. (quoting Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 61, 64-65 , 389 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1990)). “‘Hearsay evidence is testimony in court, or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the trut 2011The proponent “‘must clearly show’ that the evidence falls within an exception to the rule excluding hearsay,” Jones v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 231, 236 , 563 S.E.2d 364, 366 (2002) (quoting Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 , 318 S.E.2d 382, 386 (1984)), and in this regard, “‘the burden of persuasion is proof by the preponderance of the evidence,’” id. (quoting Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 61, 64-65 , 389 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1990)). “‘Hearsay evidence is testimony in court, or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the trut | 1 | 1 |
Neeley v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2011“Under the modern Shopbook Rule, adopted in Virginia, verified regular entries may be admitted into evidence without requiring proof from the regular observers or record keepers.” “Automatic” Sprinkler Corp. v. Coley & Peterson, Inc., 219 Va. 781, 792 , 250 S.E.2d 765, 773 (1979) (citing Neeley v. Johnson, 215 Va. 565, 571 , 211 S.E.2d 100, 106 (1975); duPont Co. v. Universal Moulded Prods. 2011“Under the modern Shopbook Rule, adopted in Virginia, verified regular entries may be admitted into evidence without requiring proof from the regular observers or record keepers.” “Automatic” Sprinkler Corp. v. Coley & Peterson, Inc., 219 Va. 781, 792 , 250 S.E.2d 765, 773 (1979) (citing Neeley v. Johnson, 215 Va. 565, 571 , 211 S.E.2d 100, 106 (1975); duPont Co. v. Universal Moulded Prods. | 1 | 1 |
Albert v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2005When deciding whether the proponent of the hearsay statement has sustained his burden of proving the necessary predicate facts, “the trial court, acting as a fact finder, must evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, resolve the conflicts in their testimony and weigh the evidence as a whole.” Albert v. Commonwealth, 2 Va.App. 734, 738 , 347 S.E.2d 534, 536 (1986). 2005When deciding whether the proponent of the hearsay statement has sustained his burden of proving the necessary predicate facts, “the trial court, acting as a fact finder, must evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, resolve the conflicts in their testimony and weigh the evidence as a whole.” Albert v. Commonwealth, 2 Va.App. 734, 738 , 347 S.E.2d 534, 536 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Mullins v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2005See Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 61, 64-65 , 389 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1990) (“On factual issues relating to the admissibility of evidence, the burden of persuasion is proof by a preponderance of the evidence.”); see also Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 , 318 S.E.2d 382, 386 (1984) (noting that the party seeking to have a hearsay declaration admitted “must clearly show” that the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule); Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 416, 420-21 , 425 S.E.2d 521, 524 (1992) (“[T]he party seeking to rely upon an exception to the hearsay rule has the burden of 2005See Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 61, 64-65 , 389 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1990) (“On factual issues relating to the admissibility of evidence, the burden of persuasion is proof by a preponderance of the evidence.”); see also Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472 , 318 S.E.2d 382, 386 (1984) (noting that the party seeking to have a hearsay declaration admitted “must clearly show” that the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule); Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 416, 420-21 , 425 S.E.2d 521, 524 (1992) (“[T]he party seeking to rely upon an exception to the hearsay rule has the burden of | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Witt v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2006Bloom v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 814 , 821, 554 S.E.2d 84 , 87 (2001); Witt v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 670 , 674, 212 S.E.2d 293 , 296 (1975). 2006Bloom v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 814 , 821, 554 S.E.2d 84 , 87 (2001); Witt v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 670 , 674, 212 S.E.2d 293 , 296 (1975). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Bloom v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2006Bloom v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 814 , 821, 554 S.E.2d 84 , 87 (2001); Witt v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 670 , 674, 212 S.E.2d 293 , 296 (1975). 2006Bloom v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 814 , 821, 554 S.E.2d 84 , 87 (2001); Witt v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 670 , 674, 212 S.E.2d 293 , 296 (1975). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.