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 4 courts 1987–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
McEwen Lumber Co. v. Lipscomb Bros. Lumber Co.green2 sentences2015Lumber Co., 234 Va. 243, 247 , 360 S.E.2d 845, 848 (1987) (“Rule 1:1 implements that policy, and we apply it rigorously, unless a statute creates a clear exception to its operation.” (citation omitted)). -5- 2015Lumber Co., 234 Va. 243, 247 , 360 S.E.2d 845, 848 (1987) (“Rule 1:1 implements that policy, and we apply it rigorously, unless a statute creates a clear exception to its operation.” (citation omitted)). -5- | 5 | 7 |
Decker v. Deckergreen2 sentences2012Under Virginia Code § 20-107.3(K), “[t]he court shall have the continuing authority and jurisdiction to make any additional orders necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to this section. . . .” However, the Court of Appeals of Virginia has said that a trial judge cannot rely upon Va. Code § 20-107.3(K) to “avoid the bar of Rule 1:1 and rule on a substantive, contested issue that was encompassed by the terms of the final decree.” Decker v. Decker, 22 Va. App. 486, 495 , 471 S.E.2d 775, 779 (1996). 2012Under Virginia Code § 20-107.3(K), “[t]he court shall have the continuing authority and jurisdiction to make any additional orders necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to this section. . . .” However, the Court of Appeals of Virginia has said that a trial judge cannot rely upon Va. Code § 20-107.3(K) to “avoid the bar of Rule 1:1 and rule on a substantive, contested issue that was encompassed by the terms of the final decree.” Decker v. Decker, 22 Va. App. 486, 495 , 471 S.E.2d 775, 779 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Com. v. Morris
green
1 sentence2012There are exceptions to Rule 1:1; inter alia, Va. Code § 8.01-677 (writ of error coram vobis) allows a court to entertain a petition to correct “clerical errors and certain errors of fact.” Morris, 281 Va. at 78, 705 S.E.2d at 506 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In Re Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences1987See In re: Department of Corrections, 222 Va. 454 , 281 S.E.2d 857 (1981). 1987See In re: Department of Corrections, 222 Va. 454 , 281 S.E.2d 857 (1981). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.