9 Virginia opinions name it 4 courts 1988–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Sandersgreen2 sentences2007We further reiterated our prior conclusion that "a liquidated damages clause will be construed as an unenforceable penalty `when the damage resulting from a breach of contract is susceptible of definite measurement, or where the stipulated amount would be grossly in excess of actual damages.'" Id. (quoting Brooks v. Bankson, 248 Va. 197 , 208, 445 S.E.2d 473 , 479 (1994)); accord 301 Dahlgren Ltd. 2005However, a liquidated damages clause will be construed as an unenforceable penalty “when the damage resulting from a breach of contract is susceptible of definite measurement, or where the stipulated amount would be grossly in excess of actual damages.” Brooks v. Bankson, 248 Va. 197, 208 , 445 S.E.2d 473, 479 (1994), citing Taylor, 233 Va. at 75 , 353 S.E.2d at 747 ); accord 301 Dahlgren, 240 Va. at 203 , 396 S.E.2d at 653 . | 2 | 5 |
Brooks v. Banksongreen2 sentences2007We further reiterated our prior conclusion that "a liquidated damages clause will be construed as an unenforceable penalty `when the damage resulting from a breach of contract is susceptible of definite measurement, or where the stipulated amount would be grossly in excess of actual damages.'" Id. (quoting Brooks v. Bankson, 248 Va. 197 , 208, 445 S.E.2d 473 , 479 (1994)); accord 301 Dahlgren Ltd. 2007We further reiterated our prior conclusion that "a liquidated damages clause will be construed as an unenforceable penalty `when the damage resulting from a breach of contract is susceptible of definite measurement, or where the stipulated amount would be grossly in excess of actual damages.'" Id. (quoting Brooks v. Bankson, 248 Va. 197 , 208, 445 S.E.2d 473 , 479 (1994)); accord 301 Dahlgren Ltd. | 2 | 3 |
301 Dahlgren Ltd. Partnership v. Board of Supervisors of King George Countygreen2 sentences2005However, a liquidated damages clause will be construed as an unenforceable penalty “when the damage resulting from a breach of contract is susceptible of definite measurement, or where the stipulated amount would be grossly in excess of actual damages.” Brooks v. Bankson, 248 Va. 197, 208 , 445 S.E.2d 473, 479 (1994), citing Taylor, 233 Va. at 75 , 353 S.E.2d at 747 ); accord 301 Dahlgren, 240 Va. at 203 , 396 S.E.2d at 653 . 2005However, a liquidated damages clause will be construed as an unenforceable penalty “when the damage resulting from a breach of contract is susceptible of definite measurement, or where the stipulated amount would be grossly in excess of actual damages.” Brooks v. Bankson, 248 Va. 197, 208 , 445 S.E.2d 473, 479 (1994), citing Taylor, 233 Va. at 75 , 353 S.E.2d at 747 ); accord 301 Dahlgren, 240 Va. at 203 , 396 S.E.2d at 653 . | 2 | 3 |
Boots, Inc. v. Prempal Singhgreen1 sentence2025See Boots, Inc., 274 Va. at 517 (“The party challenging the validity of a liquidated damages clause has the burden of proof on the issue.”). | 1 | 1 |
Blue Cross v. McDevitt & Street Co.green2 sentences1999See e.g., Blue Cross of Southwestern Va. v. McDevitt & Street Co., 234 Va. 191, 196-97 , 360 S.E.2d 825, 828 (1987) (waiver of right to claim dam *356 ages); Flintkote Co. v. W.W. 1999See e.g., Blue Cross of Southwestern Va. v. McDevitt & Street Co., 234 Va. 191, 196-97 , 360 S.E.2d 825, 828 (1987) (waiver of right to claim dam *356 ages); Flintkote Co. v. W.W. | 1 | 1 |
Rakes v. Fulchergreen2 sentences1998Generally, the granting or denying of discovery is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal unless “the action taken was improvident and affected substantial rights.” Rakes v. Fulcher, 210 Va. 542, 546 , 172 S.E.2d 751, 755 (1970). 1998Generally, the granting or denying of discovery is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal unless “the action taken was improvident and affected substantial rights.” Rakes v. Fulcher, 210 Va. 542, 546 , 172 S.E.2d 751, 755 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
O'BRIAN v. Langley School
green
2 sentences2007In O'Brian v. Langley School, 256 Va. 547 , 507 S.E.2d 363 (1998), we said that we had previously enunciated the test for determining the validity of a liquidated damages clause, as follows: "[P]arties to a contract may agree in advance about the amount to be paid as compensation for loss or injury which may result from a breach of the contract `[w]hen the actual damages contemplated at the time of the agreement are uncertain and difficult to determine with exactness and when the amount fixed is not out of all proportion to the probable loss.'" Id. at 551 , 507 S.E.2d at 365 . (quoting 301 Dah 2007In O'Brian v. Langley School, 256 Va. 547 , 507 S.E.2d 363 (1998), we said that we had previously enunciated the test for determining the validity of a liquidated damages clause, as follows: "[P]arties to a contract may agree in advance about the amount to be paid as compensation for loss or injury which may result from a breach of the contract `[w]hen the actual damages contemplated at the time of the agreement are uncertain and difficult to determine with exactness and when the amount fixed is not out of all proportion to the probable loss.'" Id. at 551 , 507 S.E.2d at 365 . (quoting 301 Dah | 4 | 2005–2009 |
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.