unique statutory framework in Virginia

2001Rather, we said that the issue was “the unique statutory framework whereby a juvenile court and in turn a circuit court acquire the authority to exercise their subject matter jurisdiction.” 259 Va. at 438 , 527 S.E.2d at 409 .

2001Rather, we said that the issue was “the unique statutory framework whereby a juvenile court and in turn a circuit court acquire the authority to exercise their subject matter jurisdiction.” 259 Va. at 438 , 527 S.E.2d at 409 .

2015Dep’t of Family Servs., 59 Va. App. 61, 68 , 717 S.E.2d 146, 149 (2011) (emphasis added) (quoting Nelson v. Warden of Keen Mt.

2015Dep’t of Family Servs., 59 Va. App. 61, 68 , 717 S.E.2d 146, 149 (2011) (emphasis added) (quoting Nelson v. Warden of Keen Mt.

2011Ctr., 262 Va. 276, 281 , 552 S.E.2d 73, 75 (2001) (quoting David Moore v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 431, 438 , 527 S.E.2d 406, 409 (2000), overruled in part by Nelson, 262 Va. at 282 , 552 S.E.2d at 76 ); see also Watkins v. Fairfax County Dep’t of Family Servs., 42 Va.App. 760 , 774 n. 12, 595 S.E.2d 19 , 26 n. 12 (2004) (stating that “the term ‘jurisdiction’ has been loosely used by the Commonwealth’s appellate courts to encompass under one ‘shorthand’ term, the concept of subject matter jurisdiction and the legally distinct but related concept ... [of] the ability of a court to exercise its jur

2011Ctr., 262 Va. 276, 281 , 552 S.E.2d 73, 75 (2001) (quoting David Moore v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 431, 438 , 527 S.E.2d 406, 409 (2000), overruled in part by Nelson, 262 Va. at 282 , 552 S.E.2d at 76 ); see also Watkins v. Fairfax County Dep’t of Family Servs., 42 Va.App. 760 , 774 n. 12, 595 S.E.2d 19 , 26 n. 12 (2004) (stating that “the term ‘jurisdiction’ has been loosely used by the Commonwealth’s appellate courts to encompass under one ‘shorthand’ term, the concept of subject matter jurisdiction and the legally distinct but related concept ... [of] the ability of a court to exercise its jur

2006Servs. v. D.N., 29 Va. App. 400, 406 , 512 S.E.2d 830, 832 (1999); Peple v. Peple, 5 Va. App. 414, 419 , 364 S.E.2d 232, 236 (1988).

2006Servs. v. D.N., 29 Va. App. 400, 406 , 512 S.E.2d 830, 832 (1999); Peple v. Peple, 5 Va. App. 414, 419 , 364 S.E.2d 232, 236 (1988).

2006As such, the admission of the certificate pursuant to Code § 18.2-459 did not implicate any of Gilman’s Confrontation Clause rights, and we affirm the trial court. -4- JDR Court Proceeding The common law is clear that “[c]ontempt proceedings are sui generis.” Wilson v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 318, 323 , 477 S.E.2d 7, 9 (1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2006As such, the admission of the certificate pursuant to Code § 18.2-459 did not implicate any of Gilman’s Confrontation Clause rights, and we affirm the trial court. -4- JDR Court Proceeding The common law is clear that “[c]ontempt proceedings are sui generis.” Wilson v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 318, 323 , 477 S.E.2d 7, 9 (1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2006Servs. v. D.N., 29 Va. App. 400, 406 , 512 S.E.2d 830, 832 (1999); Peple v. Peple, 5 Va. App. 414, 419 , 364 S.E.2d 232, 236 (1988).

2006Servs. v. D.N., 29 Va. App. 400, 406 , 512 S.E.2d 830, 832 (1999); Peple v. Peple, 5 Va. App. 414, 419 , 364 S.E.2d 232, 236 (1988).

2006Epps v. Commonwealth, 47 Va.App. 687, 707 , 626 S.E.2d 912, 921 (2006) (en banc) (Record Nos. 0591-04-2 and 2303-02-2) (judge may not testify in matter previously before him). 15 As such, the proceeding in circuit court is a unique statutory hearing requiring a de novo determination, not a trial de novo, as in other appeals from district courts. 16 “[A] statute will be construed in such a manner as to avoid a constitutional question wherever this is possible.” Eaton v. Davis, 176 Va. 330, 339 , 10 S.E.2d 893, 897 (1940).

2006Epps v. Commonwealth, 47 Va.App. 687, 707 , 626 S.E.2d 912, 921 (2006) (en banc) (Record Nos. 0591-04-2 and 2303-02-2) (judge may not testify in matter previously before him). 15 As such, the proceeding in circuit court is a unique statutory hearing requiring a de novo determination, not a trial de novo, as in other appeals from district courts. 16 “[A] statute will be construed in such a manner as to avoid a constitutional question wherever this is possible.” Eaton v. Davis, 176 Va. 330, 339 , 10 S.E.2d 893, 897 (1940).

2006However, the court must enter a written order finding contempt and reciting fully, clearly and specifically the facts from which the contempt arose in order to preserve a meaningful right of appeal.” (citations omitted)). -8- matter previously before him).15 As such, the proceeding in circuit court is a unique statutory hearing requiring a de novo determination, not a trial de novo, as in other appeals from district courts.16 15 “We have repeatedly held that an appeal to the circuit court from a court not of record under Code § 16.1-136 . . . grants to a litigant every advantage which would ha

2006However, the court must enter a written order finding contempt and reciting fully, clearly and specifically the facts from which the contempt arose in order to preserve a meaningful right of appeal.” (citations omitted)). -8- matter previously before him).15 As such, the proceeding in circuit court is a unique statutory hearing requiring a de novo determination, not a trial de novo, as in other appeals from district courts.16 15 “We have repeatedly held that an appeal to the circuit court from a court not of record under Code § 16.1-136 . . . grants to a litigant every advantage which would ha

2006Epps v. Commonwealth, 47 Va.App. 687, 707 , 626 S.E.2d 912, 921 (2006) (en banc) (Record Nos. 0591-04-2 and 2303-02-2) (judge may not testify in matter previously before him). 15 As such, the proceeding in circuit court is a unique statutory hearing requiring a de novo determination, not a trial de novo, as in other appeals from district courts. 16 “[A] statute will be construed in such a manner as to avoid a constitutional question wherever this is possible.” Eaton v. Davis, 176 Va. 330, 339 , 10 S.E.2d 893, 897 (1940).

2006Epps v. Commonwealth, 47 Va.App. 687, 707 , 626 S.E.2d 912, 921 (2006) (en banc) (Record Nos. 0591-04-2 and 2303-02-2) (judge may not testify in matter previously before him). 15 As such, the proceeding in circuit court is a unique statutory hearing requiring a de novo determination, not a trial de novo, as in other appeals from district courts. 16 “[A] statute will be construed in such a manner as to avoid a constitutional question wherever this is possible.” Eaton v. Davis, 176 Va. 330, 339 , 10 S.E.2d 893, 897 (1940).