8 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1876–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Linngreen1 sentence2017Addressing pleas in bar specifically, Joseph Chitty noted a more general application of the rule in his seminal treatise on pleading: As it is a natural presumption that the party pleading will state his case as favorably for himself as possible, and that if he do not state it with all its legal circumstances, the case is not in fact favorable to him, it is a rule of construction, that if a plea has on the face of it two intendments, it shall be taken most strongly against the defendant; that is, the most unfavorable meaning shall be put upon the plea; a rule which we have seen obtains also in | 1 | 1 |
Boyd v. Boydgreen2 sentences2017Addressing pleas in bar specifically, Joseph Chitty noted a more general application of the rule in his seminal treatise on pleading: As it is a natural presumption that the party pleading will state his case as favorably for himself as possible, and that if he do not state it with all its legal circumstances, the case is not in fact favorable to him, it is a rule of construction, that if a plea has on the face of it two intendments, it shall be taken most strongly against the defendant; that is, the most unfavorable meaning shall be put upon the plea; a rule which we have seen obtains also in 2017Addressing pleas in bar specifically, Joseph Chitty noted a more general application of the rule in his seminal treatise on pleading: As it is a natural presumption that the party pleading will state his case as favorably for himself as possible, and that if he do not state it with all its legal circumstances, the case is not in fact favorable to him, it is a rule of construction, that if a plea has on the face of it two intendments, it shall be taken most strongly against the defendant; that is, the most unfavorable meaning shall be put upon the plea; a rule which we have seen obtains also in | 1 | 1 |
Steven T. Russell v. Karen A. Russellgreen2 sentences2017Addressing pleas in bar specifically, Joseph Chitty noted a more general application of the rule in his seminal treatise on pleading: As it is a natural presumption that the party pleading will state his case as favorably for himself as possible, and that if he do not state it with all its legal circumstances, the case is not in fact favorable to him, it is a rule of construction, that if a plea has on the face of it two intendments, it shall be taken most strongly against the defendant; that is, the most unfavorable meaning shall be put upon the plea; a rule which we have seen obtains also in 2017Addressing pleas in bar specifically, Joseph Chitty noted a more general application of the rule in his seminal treatise on pleading: As it is a natural presumption that the party pleading will state his case as favorably for himself as possible, and that if he do not state it with all its legal circumstances, the case is not in fact favorable to him, it is a rule of construction, that if a plea has on the face of it two intendments, it shall be taken most strongly against the defendant; that is, the most unfavorable meaning shall be put upon the plea; a rule which we have seen obtains also in | 1 | 1 |
Harrell v. Harrellgreen2 sentences2017Addressing pleas in bar specifically, Joseph Chitty noted a more general application of the rule in his seminal treatise on pleading: As it is a natural presumption that the party pleading will state his case as favorably for himself as possible, and that if he do not state it with all its legal circumstances, the case is not in fact favorable to him, it is a rule of construction, that if a plea has on the face of it two intendments, it shall be taken most strongly against the defendant; that is, the most unfavorable meaning shall be put upon the plea; a rule which we have seen obtains also in 2017Addressing pleas in bar specifically, Joseph Chitty noted a more general application of the rule in his seminal treatise on pleading: As it is a natural presumption that the party pleading will state his case as favorably for himself as possible, and that if he do not state it with all its legal circumstances, the case is not in fact favorable to him, it is a rule of construction, that if a plea has on the face of it two intendments, it shall be taken most strongly against the defendant; that is, the most unfavorable meaning shall be put upon the plea; a rule which we have seen obtains also in | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Early v. Wilkinson & Hunt
green
2 sentences1876Great public inconveniences would result from a different doctrine, considering the various public functionaries, which the government must employ, in order to transact its ordinary business and operations; and many persons would be deterred from accepting of many offices of trust under the government if they were held personally liable upon all their official contracts.” The court by Moncure, J., in Walker v. Christian, 21 Gratt. 297 . i. Instances. — in Early v. Wilkinson, 9 Gratt. 68 , a note signed ‘’Robert H. 1876Great public inconveniences would result from a different doctrine, considering the various public functionaries, which the government must employ, in order to transact its ordinary business and operations; and many persons would be deterred from accepting of many offices of trust under the government if they were held personally liable upon all their official contracts.” The court by Moncure, J., in Walker v. Christian, 21 Gratt. 297 . i. Instances. — in Early v. Wilkinson, 9 Gratt. 68 , a note signed ‘’Robert H. | 3 | 1876–1876 |
Robinson v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2014“The fact that Payne was not called raised the natural presumption that he (Payne) would not have corroborated (defendant).” Id. at 880 , 183 S.E. at 256 . 2014“The fact that Payne was not called raised the natural presumption that he (Payne) would not have corroborated (defendant).” Id. at 880 , 183 S.E. at 256 . | 2 | 1976–2014 |
Keeler v. Sears, Roebuck Co.
green
2 sentences1938In Keeler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 121 Conn. 56 , 183 A. 20 , it is said: “The accident occurred within the period of employment at a place where the decedent might reasonably have been. ‘There is a natural presumption that one charged with the performance of a duty and found injured at the place where duty may have required him to be is injured in the course of, and as a consequence of, the employment.’ Saunders v. New England Collapsible Tube Co., 95 Conn. 40, 43 , 110 A. 538, 539 .” In Flucker v. Carnegie Steel Co., 263 Pa. 113 , 106 A. 192 , the court said: “Where no facts appear indicatin 1938In Keeler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 121 Conn. 56 , 183 A. 20 , it is said: “The accident occurred within the period of employment at a place where the decedent might reasonably have been. ‘There is a natural presumption that one charged with the performance of a duty and found injured at the place where duty may have required him to be is injured in the course of, and as a consequence of, the employment.’ Saunders v. New England Collapsible Tube Co., 95 Conn. 40, 43 , 110 A. 538, 539 .” In Flucker v. Carnegie Steel Co., 263 Pa. 113 , 106 A. 192 , the court said: “Where no facts appear indicatin | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Saunders v. New England Collapsible Tube Co.
green
2 sentences1938In Keeler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 121 Conn. 56 , 183 A. 20 , it is said: “The accident occurred within the period of employment at a place where the decedent might reasonably have been. ‘There is a natural presumption that one charged with the performance of a duty and found injured at the place where duty may have required him to be is injured in the course of, and as a consequence of, the employment.’ Saunders v. New England Collapsible Tube Co., 95 Conn. 40, 43 , 110 A. 538, 539 .” In Flucker v. Carnegie Steel Co., 263 Pa. 113 , 106 A. 192 , the court said: “Where no facts appear indicatin 1938In Keeler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 121 Conn. 56 , 183 A. 20 , it is said: “The accident occurred within the period of employment at a place where the decedent might reasonably have been. ‘There is a natural presumption that one charged with the performance of a duty and found injured at the place where duty may have required him to be is injured in the course of, and as a consequence of, the employment.’ Saunders v. New England Collapsible Tube Co., 95 Conn. 40, 43 , 110 A. 538, 539 .” In Flucker v. Carnegie Steel Co., 263 Pa. 113 , 106 A. 192 , the court said: “Where no facts appear indicatin | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Codell Construction Co. v. Neal
green
2 sentences1938We think it more likely than *447 otherwise that the decedent was doing her duty when injured, and that this is a reasonable inference to draw, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” See also, Tewes et al. v. Industrial Commission et al., 194 Wis. 489 , 215 N. W. 898 ; Codell Const. Co. v. Neal et al., 258 Ky. 603 , 80 S. W. (2d) 530 ; Wishcaless v. Hammond, Standish & Co., 201 Mich. 192 , 166 N. W. 993 ; Henry v. D. 1938We think it more likely than *447 otherwise that the decedent was doing her duty when injured, and that this is a reasonable inference to draw, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” See also, Tewes et al. v. Industrial Commission et al., 194 Wis. 489 , 215 N. W. 898 ; Codell Const. Co. v. Neal et al., 258 Ky. 603 , 80 S. W. (2d) 530 ; Wishcaless v. Hammond, Standish & Co., 201 Mich. 192 , 166 N. W. 993 ; Henry v. D. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Flucker v. Carnegie Steel Co.
green
2 sentences1938In Keeler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 121 Conn. 56 , 183 A. 20 , it is said: “The accident occurred within the period of employment at a place where the decedent might reasonably have been. ‘There is a natural presumption that one charged with the performance of a duty and found injured at the place where duty may have required him to be is injured in the course of, and as a consequence of, the employment.’ Saunders v. New England Collapsible Tube Co., 95 Conn. 40, 43 , 110 A. 538, 539 .” In Flucker v. Carnegie Steel Co., 263 Pa. 113 , 106 A. 192 , the court said: “Where no facts appear indicatin 1938In Keeler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 121 Conn. 56 , 183 A. 20 , it is said: “The accident occurred within the period of employment at a place where the decedent might reasonably have been. ‘There is a natural presumption that one charged with the performance of a duty and found injured at the place where duty may have required him to be is injured in the course of, and as a consequence of, the employment.’ Saunders v. New England Collapsible Tube Co., 95 Conn. 40, 43 , 110 A. 538, 539 .” In Flucker v. Carnegie Steel Co., 263 Pa. 113 , 106 A. 192 , the court said: “Where no facts appear indicatin | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Dreyfus & Co. v. Meade
green
2 sentences1938The commission based its decision to deny compensation in this case upon Dreyfus & Co. v. Meade, 142 Va. 567 , 129 S. E. 336 . 1938The commission based its decision to deny compensation in this case upon Dreyfus & Co. v. Meade, 142 Va. 567 , 129 S. E. 336 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Tewes v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1938We think it more likely than *447 otherwise that the decedent was doing her duty when injured, and that this is a reasonable inference to draw, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” See also, Tewes et al. v. Industrial Commission et al., 194 Wis. 489 , 215 N. W. 898 ; Codell Const. Co. v. Neal et al., 258 Ky. 603 , 80 S. W. (2d) 530 ; Wishcaless v. Hammond, Standish & Co., 201 Mich. 192 , 166 N. W. 993 ; Henry v. D. 1938We think it more likely than *447 otherwise that the decedent was doing her duty when injured, and that this is a reasonable inference to draw, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” See also, Tewes et al. v. Industrial Commission et al., 194 Wis. 489 , 215 N. W. 898 ; Codell Const. Co. v. Neal et al., 258 Ky. 603 , 80 S. W. (2d) 530 ; Wishcaless v. Hammond, Standish & Co., 201 Mich. 192 , 166 N. W. 993 ; Henry v. D. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Wishcaless v. Hammond, Standish & Co.
neutral
2 sentences1938We think it more likely than *447 otherwise that the decedent was doing her duty when injured, and that this is a reasonable inference to draw, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” See also, Tewes et al. v. Industrial Commission et al., 194 Wis. 489 , 215 N. W. 898 ; Codell Const. Co. v. Neal et al., 258 Ky. 603 , 80 S. W. (2d) 530 ; Wishcaless v. Hammond, Standish & Co., 201 Mich. 192 , 166 N. W. 993 ; Henry v. D. 1938We think it more likely than *447 otherwise that the decedent was doing her duty when injured, and that this is a reasonable inference to draw, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” See also, Tewes et al. v. Industrial Commission et al., 194 Wis. 489 , 215 N. W. 898 ; Codell Const. Co. v. Neal et al., 258 Ky. 603 , 80 S. W. (2d) 530 ; Wishcaless v. Hammond, Standish & Co., 201 Mich. 192 , 166 N. W. 993 ; Henry v. D. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Porter v. Porter
green
2 sentences1908To say that insanity must be presumed until sanity be proved, would seem to be saying that insanity is the natural state of the human mind.” Temple v. Temple, 1 Hen. & Munf. 476; Porter v. Porter, 89 Va. 118 , 15 S. E. 500 ; Wallen v. Wallen, supra. Where, however, the sanity of the testator is put in issue by the evidence of the contestant, the onus probandi lies upon the proponent to satisfy the court or jury that the writing propounded is the will of a capable testator. 1908To say that insanity must be presumed until sanity be proved, would seem to be saying that insanity is the natural state of the human mind.” Temple v. Temple, 1 Hen. & Munf. 476; Porter v. Porter, 89 Va. 118 , 15 S. E. 500 ; Wallen v. Wallen, supra. Where, however, the sanity of the testator is put in issue by the evidence of the contestant, the onus probandi lies upon the proponent to satisfy the court or jury that the writing propounded is the will of a capable testator. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.