9 Virginia opinions name it 5 courts 1994–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Charles E. Brauer Co. v. NationsBank of Virginiagreen2 sentences2025Whether framed as statutory or common law conspiracy, both claims fail here under the intracorporate immunity doctrine articulated in Brauer, 251 Va. at 36 . 2025Whether framed as statutory or common law conspiracy, both claims fail here under the intracorporate immunity doctrine articulated in Brauer, 251 Va. at 36. | 2 | 4 |
Selman v. American Sports Underwriters, Inc.green2 sentences1997Co. v. Daley Reflector, Inc., 496 F.2d 381, 399 (4th Cir. 1974) (applying the independent stake exception to the intracorporate immunity doctrine); Selman v. American Sport Underwriters, Inc., 697 F. Supp. 225 (W.D. 1994Selman v. American Sports Underwriters, Inc., 697 F. Supp. 225, 238 (W.D. | 1 | 2 |
Larimore v. Blaylockgreen2 sentences2014See Brief for Appellees at 26-29, Larimore v. Blaylock, 259 Va. 568 , 528 S.E.2d 119 (2000) (No. 991567). 2014See Brief for Appellees at 26-29, Larimore v. Blaylock, 259 Va. 568 , 528 S.E.2d 119 (2000) (No. 991567). | 1 | 1 |
Bowman v. State Bank of Keysvillegreen2 sentences2004The intracorporate immunity doctrine states that “there must be two persons to comprise a conspiracy, and a corporation, like an individual, cannot conspire with itself.” Nedrich v. Jones, 245 Va. 465, 473 , 429 S.E.2d 201, 205 (1993) (quoting Bowman v. State Bank, 229 Va. 534, 541 , 331 S.E.2d 797, 801 (1985)); see also Charles E. 2004The intracorporate immunity doctrine states that “there must be two persons to comprise a conspiracy, and a corporation, like an individual, cannot conspire with itself.” Nedrich v. Jones, 245 Va. 465, 473 , 429 S.E.2d 201, 205 (1993) (quoting Bowman v. State Bank, 229 Va. 534, 541 , 331 S.E.2d 797, 801 (1985)); see also Charles E. | 1 | 1 |
Nedrich v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2004The intracorporate immunity doctrine states that “there must be two persons to comprise a conspiracy, and a corporation, like an individual, cannot conspire with itself.” Nedrich v. Jones, 245 Va. 465, 473 , 429 S.E.2d 201, 205 (1993) (quoting Bowman v. State Bank, 229 Va. 534, 541 , 331 S.E.2d 797, 801 (1985)); see also Charles E. 2004The intracorporate immunity doctrine states that “there must be two persons to comprise a conspiracy, and a corporation, like an individual, cannot conspire with itself.” Nedrich v. Jones, 245 Va. 465, 473 , 429 S.E.2d 201, 205 (1993) (quoting Bowman v. State Bank, 229 Va. 534, 541 , 331 S.E.2d 797, 801 (1985)); see also Charles E. | 1 | 1 |
Oksanen v. Page Memorial Hospitalgreen1 sentence1996The Oksanen court criticized the intracorporate exception created in Greenville and opined that “the exception threatened to swallow the rule.” Id. at 705. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
CaterCorp, Inc. v. Catering Concepts, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011In CaterCorp, Inc. v. Catering Concepts, Inc., 246 Va. 22 , 431 S.E.2d 277 (1993), cited by the plaintiffs, the defendants alleged to have committed the tortious interference with contract were third parties to the noncompetition agreement between the plaintiff and its employee. 2011In CaterCorp, Inc. v. Catering Concepts, Inc., 246 Va. 22 , 431 S.E.2d 277 (1993), cited by the plaintiffs, the defendants alleged to have committed the tortious interference with contract were third parties to the noncompetition agreement between the plaintiff and its employee. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Cvent, Inc. v. Eventbrite, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011In their argument opposing the motion for reconsideration, the defendants cite Cvent, Inc. v. Eventbrite, Inc., 739 F. Supp. 2d 927 (E.D. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.