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.
8 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2026“The admissibility of evidence is within the broad discretion of the trial court, and a ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 231, 236 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Bly v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2010To be sure, Lee’s avowed purpose was to augment his physical limitations so the USPS would have no choice but to assign him to sedentary inside work — a specific limitation which Dr. Paik’s unaltered form would not have required. 4 Finally, the trial court was at liberty to disbelieve Lee’s claim that Dr. Paik authorized the alterations and, based upon this finding, “conclude that he was ‘lying to conceal his guilt.’” Bly v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 1, 12 , 682 S.E.2d 556, 562 (2009) (en banc) (citation omitted). 2010To be sure, Lee’s avowed purpose was to augment his physical limitations so the USPS would have no choice but to assign him to sedentary inside work — a specific limitation which Dr. Paik’s unaltered form would not have required. 4 Finally, the trial court was at liberty to disbelieve Lee’s claim that Dr. Paik authorized the alterations and, based upon this finding, “conclude that he was ‘lying to conceal his guilt.’” Bly v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 1, 12 , 682 S.E.2d 556, 562 (2009) (en banc) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Garnett v. Com.green2 sentences2009See Garnett, 275 Va. at 416 , 657 S.E.2d at 112 . -5- For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 2009See Garnett, 275 Va. at 416 , 657 S.E.2d at 112 . -5- For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. | 1 | 1 |
Kennedy v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2008“We will not disturb the trial court’s discretionary decision unless “it is clear that such discretion has been abused.” Kennedy v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 543, 549 , 445 S.E.2d 699, 703 (1994). 2008“We will not disturb the trial court’s discretionary decision unless “it is clear that such discretion has been abused.” Kennedy v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 543, 549 , 445 S.E.2d 699, 703 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Idaho v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2000Id. at 824 , 110 S.Ct. at 3151 (emphasis added); see Washington v. Rice, 120 Wash.2d 549 , 844 P.2d 416 , 427 n. 5 (1993) (en banc) (observing that Wright rejected only physical evidence as corroborative of a eodefendant’s “interlocking” confession, not the interlocking nature of the confessions themselves). 2000Id. at 824 , 110 S.Ct. at 3151 (emphasis added); see Washington v. Rice, 120 Wash.2d 549 , 844 P.2d 416 , 427 n. 5 (1993) (en banc) (observing that Wright rejected only physical evidence as corroborative of a eodefendant’s “interlocking” confession, not the interlocking nature of the confessions themselves). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ricegreen2 sentences2000Id. at 824 , 110 S.Ct. at 3151 (emphasis added); see Washington v. Rice, 120 Wash.2d 549 , 844 P.2d 416 , 427 n. 5 (1993) (en banc) (observing that Wright rejected only physical evidence as corroborative of a eodefendant’s “interlocking” confession, not the interlocking nature of the confessions themselves). 2000Id. at 824 , 110 S.Ct. at 3151 (emphasis added); see Washington v. Rice, 120 Wash.2d 549 , 844 P.2d 416 , 427 n. 5 (1993) (en banc) (observing that Wright rejected only physical evidence as corroborative of a eodefendant’s “interlocking” confession, not the interlocking nature of the confessions themselves). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sidney v. Com.
green
1 sentence2024ANALYSIS On appeal to this Court, Lee argues, “The trial court erred by failing to grant Lee’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his backpack, which was searched beyond the scope of Lee’s consent without a warrant or a legitimate exception to the warrant requirement.”3 3 Lee does not challenge that his initial encounter with Deputy Heywood and First Sergeant Collins outside the 7-Eleven convenience store was consensual. -5- The Supreme Court has often stated, “The defendant has the burden to show that, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the trial c | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lee v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 1109-10 , 254 S.E.2d at 127 . 2014Id. at 1109-10 , 254 S.E.2d at 127 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
STATION 2, LLC v. Lynch
green
2 sentences2011Station # 2, LLC, 280 Va. at 169 , 695 S.E.2d at 539 . 2011Station # 2, LLC, 280 Va. at 169 , 695 S.E.2d at 539 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Coleman v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2010“This principle naturally follows from the broader observation that ‘whenever a witness testifies, his or her credibility becomes an issue.’” Coleman v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 19, 25-26 , 4 Lee also asserts Dr. Paik’s testimony “was checkered and all over the place.” See Appellant’s Br. at 8. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.