9 Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2006 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
O'NEAL v. McAninchgreen2 sentences2006The United States Supreme Court has held that “the principle of Kotteakos [means] that when an error’s natural effect is to prejudice substantial rights and the court is in grave doubt about the harmlessness of that error, the error must be treated as if it had a ‘substantial and injurious effect’ on the verdict.” O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 444 (1995). 2005Applying this test, the United States Supreme Court has held that “the principle of Kotteakos [means] that when an error’s natural effect is to prejudice substantial rights and the court is in grave doubt about the harmlessness of that error, the error must be treated as if it had a ‘substantial and injurious effect’ on the verdict.” O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 444 , 115 S.Ct. 992, 998 , 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995). | 5 | 9 |
Kotteakos v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2005If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253, 260 , 546 S.E.2d 728, 731-32 (2001) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65 (1946)). “[T]he principle of Kotteakos [means] that when an error’s natural effect is to prejudice substantial rights and the court is in grave doubt about the harmlessness of that error, the error must be treated as if it had a ‘substantial and injurious effect’ on the verdict.” O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 444 (1995) (quoting Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 764-65, 776 )). 2005If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253, 260 , 546 S.E.2d 728, 731-32 (2001) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65 (1946)). “[T]he principle of Kotteakos [means] that when an error’s natural effect is to prejudice substantial rights and the court is in grave doubt about the harmlessness of that error, the error must be treated as if it had a ‘substantial and injurious effect’ on the verdict.” O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 444 (1995) (quoting Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 764-65, 776 )). | 4 | 5 |
Caldwell v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2005Indeed, the Supreme Court of Virginia has held that “error will be presumed to be prejudicial unless it plainly appears that it could not have affected the result.” Caldwell v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 291, 296 , 269 S.E.2d 811, 814 (1980). 2005Indeed, the Supreme Court of Virginia has held that “error will be presumed to be prejudicial unless it plainly appears that it could not have affected the result.” Caldwell v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 291, 296 , 269 S.E.2d 811, 814 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Clay v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2005If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253, 260 , 546 S.E.2d 728, 731-32 (2001) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65 (1946)). “[T]he principle of Kotteakos [means] that when an error’s natural effect is to prejudice substantial rights and the court is in grave doubt about the harmlessness of that error, the error must be treated as if it had a ‘substantial and injurious effect’ on the verdict.” O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 444 (1995) (quoting Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 764-65, 776 )). 2005If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253, 260 , 546 S.E.2d 728, 731-32 (2001) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65 (1946)). “[T]he principle of Kotteakos [means] that when an error’s natural effect is to prejudice substantial rights and the court is in grave doubt about the harmlessness of that error, the error must be treated as if it had a ‘substantial and injurious effect’ on the verdict.” O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 444 (1995) (quoting Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 764-65, 776 )). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.