8 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pijor v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2026“The judgment of the trial court is presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is ‘plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’” Pijor v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502, 512 (2017) (quoting Code § 8.01-680). | 1 | 1 |
Rich v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2025And the jury, as the trier of fact, was entitled to reject Moore’s claim of innocence and his “self-serving testimony.” See, e.g., Rich v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 791, 802 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2018ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review “A defendant’s claim that evidence was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment presents a mixed question of law and fact that [appellate courts] review de novo on appeal.” Murphy v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 568, 573 , 570 S.E.2d 836, 838 (2002). 2018ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review “A defendant’s claim that evidence was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment presents a mixed question of law and fact that [appellate courts] review de novo on appeal.” Murphy v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 568, 573 , 570 S.E.2d 836, 838 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Acey v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2012However, even if we assume without deciding that Moore’s inartful objection properly preserved this point for our consideration, we nevertheless affirm the trial court on this issue. 3 When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, “ ‘[a]n appellate court must discard all evidence of the accused that conflicts with that of the Commonwealth and regard as true all credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences reasonably deducible therefrom.’ ” Acey v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 240, 244-45 , 511 S.E.2d 429, 431 (1999) (quoting Lea v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App 2012However, even if we assume without deciding that Moore’s inartful objection properly preserved this point for our consideration, we nevertheless affirm the trial court on this issue. 3 When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, “ ‘[a]n appellate court must discard all evidence of the accused that conflicts with that of the Commonwealth and regard as true all credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences reasonably deducible therefrom.’ ” Acey v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 240, 244-45 , 511 S.E.2d 429, 431 (1999) (quoting Lea v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App | 1 | 1 |
Lea v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2012However, even if we assume without deciding that Moore’s inartful objection properly preserved this point for our consideration, we nevertheless affirm the trial court on this issue. 3 When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, “ ‘[a]n appellate court must discard all evidence of the accused that conflicts with that of the Commonwealth and regard as true all credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences reasonably deducible therefrom.’ ” Acey v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 240, 244-45 , 511 S.E.2d 429, 431 (1999) (quoting Lea v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App 2012However, even if we assume without deciding that Moore’s inartful objection properly preserved this point for our consideration, we nevertheless affirm the trial court on this issue. 3 When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, “ ‘[a]n appellate court must discard all evidence of the accused that conflicts with that of the Commonwealth and regard as true all credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences reasonably deducible therefrom.’ ” Acey v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 240, 244-45 , 511 S.E.2d 429, 431 (1999) (quoting Lea v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Franklin Minor v. Commonwealth of Virginia
green
2 sentences2026However, because the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to address Moore’s motion to set aside the verdict on September 24, 2024, the trial court’s September 24, 2024 order denying the motion “after the twenty-one-day period ha[d] run is a nullity.” Id. 2026However, because the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to address Moore’s motion to set aside the verdict on September 24, 2024, the trial court’s September 24, 2024 order denying the motion “after the twenty-one-day period ha[d] run is a nullity.” Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Sidney v. Com.
green
1 sentence2025So “we include [our analysis of Moore’s challenge concerning his] state constitutional rights in our discussion of his federal constitutional rights.” See id. -8- II. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
1 sentence2015The Court previously ruled, on August 31, 2015, that the defendants had made the necessary substantial showing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), to require an evidentiary hearing on the issue. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Moore v. Com.
green
2 sentences2009We conclude that, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeals erred in foreclosing Moore's right to defend the decision of the panel that had ruled in his favor, and will accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals sitting en banc. *868 Id. at 756 , 668 S.E.2d at 155 . 2009We conclude that, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeals erred in foreclosing Moore's right to defend the decision of the panel that had ruled in his favor, and will accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals sitting en banc. *868 Id. at 756 , 668 S.E.2d at 155 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
McCoy v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1999Cf. McCoy, 206 Va. at 475 , 144 S.E.2d at 308 . 1999Cf. McCoy, 206 Va. at 475 , 144 S.E.2d at 308 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.