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 5 courts 1969–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bullcoming v. New Mexicogreen2 sentences2018Two years later, the United States Supreme Court addressed whether a certificate of analysis could be admissible if the testifying analyst “did not sign the certification or personally perform or observe the performance of the test reported in the certification.” See Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 657 (2011). 2012It is true that the individual who provided in-court testimony in Bullcoming “did not sign the certification or personally perform or observe the performance of the test reported in the certification.” Id. | 3 | 5 |
Williams v. Warden of Mecklenburg Correctional Centergreen2 sentences2014At the evidentiary hearing on the habeas petition, the trial court concluded that “the performance of defense counsel, in the main, during the penalty phase proceedings did not warrant habeas relief.” Williams v. Warden of the Mecklenberg Correctional Center, 254 Va. 16, 21 (1997). 2014(I will refer to the Virginia case as Williams-Warden to distinguish this case from the Williams case decided by the United States Supreme Court.) Nevertheless, observing that there was little evidence presented regarding mitigation (and the habeas petition indicated that there was a wealth of it that should have been presented) or of evidence that, in structured settings, the defendant’s conduct was good, the trial court finally commented that “it is troubling ... that favorable evidence was not pursued and introduced for ‘whatever it was worth’ when the decision which was to be made by the j | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hart v. Barron
green
2 sentences2005The doctrine of substantial performance does not apply, and no title passes prior to full performance of the terms of the escrow agreement."); Watts v. Mohr, 86 Cal.App.2d 256 , 194 P.2d 758 , 761 (1948) (refusing to apply substantial performance and to order release of funds from escrow where one party had failed to deliver timely to escrow agent a $6000 note and deed of trust to complete real estate transaction); Taft v. Taft, 59 Mich. 185 , 26 N.W. 426 , 430 (1886) (holding: "performance of the condition must be absolute and accurate, and cannot be dispensed with on any otherwise substantia 2005The doctrine of substantial performance does not apply, and no title passes prior to full performance of the terms of the escrow agreement."); Watts v. Mohr, 86 Cal.App.2d 256 , 194 P.2d 758 , 761 (1948) (refusing to apply substantial performance and to order release of funds from escrow where one party had failed to deliver timely to escrow agent a $6000 note and deed of trust to complete real estate transaction); Taft v. Taft, 59 Mich. 185 , 26 N.W. 426 , 430 (1886) (holding: "performance of the condition must be absolute and accurate, and cannot be dispensed with on any otherwise substantia | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Taft v. Taft
green
2 sentences2005The doctrine of substantial performance does not apply, and no title passes prior to full performance of the terms of the escrow agreement."); Watts v. Mohr, 86 Cal.App.2d 256 , 194 P.2d 758 , 761 (1948) (refusing to apply substantial performance and to order release of funds from escrow where one party had failed to deliver timely to escrow agent a $6000 note and deed of trust to complete real estate transaction); Taft v. Taft, 59 Mich. 185 , 26 N.W. 426 , 430 (1886) (holding: "performance of the condition must be absolute and accurate, and cannot be dispensed with on any otherwise substantia 2005The doctrine of substantial performance does not apply, and no title passes prior to full performance of the terms of the escrow agreement."); Watts v. Mohr, 86 Cal.App.2d 256 , 194 P.2d 758 , 761 (1948) (refusing to apply substantial performance and to order release of funds from escrow where one party had failed to deliver timely to escrow agent a $6000 note and deed of trust to complete real estate transaction); Taft v. Taft, 59 Mich. 185 , 26 N.W. 426 , 430 (1886) (holding: "performance of the condition must be absolute and accurate, and cannot be dispensed with on any otherwise substantia | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Valentine Oil Co. v. Powers
green
2 sentences2005The doctrine of substantial performance does not apply, and no title passes prior to full performance of the terms of the escrow agreement."); Watts v. Mohr, 86 Cal.App.2d 256 , 194 P.2d 758 , 761 (1948) (refusing to apply substantial performance and to order release of funds from escrow where one party had failed to deliver timely to escrow agent a $6000 note and deed of trust to complete real estate transaction); Taft v. Taft, 59 Mich. 185 , 26 N.W. 426 , 430 (1886) (holding: "performance of the condition must be absolute and accurate, and cannot be dispensed with on any otherwise substantia 2005The doctrine of substantial performance does not apply, and no title passes prior to full performance of the terms of the escrow agreement."); Watts v. Mohr, 86 Cal.App.2d 256 , 194 P.2d 758 , 761 (1948) (refusing to apply substantial performance and to order release of funds from escrow where one party had failed to deliver timely to escrow agent a $6000 note and deed of trust to complete real estate transaction); Taft v. Taft, 59 Mich. 185 , 26 N.W. 426 , 430 (1886) (holding: "performance of the condition must be absolute and accurate, and cannot be dispensed with on any otherwise substantia | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Watts v. Mohr
green
2 sentences2005The doctrine of substantial performance does not apply, and no title passes prior to full performance of the terms of the escrow agreement."); Watts v. Mohr, 86 Cal.App.2d 256 , 194 P.2d 758 , 761 (1948) (refusing to apply substantial performance and to order release of funds from escrow where one party had failed to deliver timely to escrow agent a $6000 note and deed of trust to complete real estate transaction); Taft v. Taft, 59 Mich. 185 , 26 N.W. 426 , 430 (1886) (holding: "performance of the condition must be absolute and accurate, and cannot be dispensed with on any otherwise substantia 2005The doctrine of substantial performance does not apply, and no title passes prior to full performance of the terms of the escrow agreement."); Watts v. Mohr, 86 Cal.App.2d 256 , 194 P.2d 758 , 761 (1948) (refusing to apply substantial performance and to order release of funds from escrow where one party had failed to deliver timely to escrow agent a $6000 note and deed of trust to complete real estate transaction); Taft v. Taft, 59 Mich. 185 , 26 N.W. 426 , 430 (1886) (holding: "performance of the condition must be absolute and accurate, and cannot be dispensed with on any otherwise substantia | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2002In addition, under the Strickland standard, “the performance inquiry must be whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Bell v. Routh Robbins Real Estate Corp.
green
1 sentence1969And it matters not whether such profit or advantage be the result of the performance or the violation of the duty of the agent if it be the fruit of the agency." On behalf of the plaintiff the case of Bell v. Real Estate Corp, 206 Va. 853 (1966), is cited. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.