7 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Charcoal Hearth Restaurant v. Kandetzkigreen2 sentences2007Cf. Lynch v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 204, 209 , 630 S.E.2d 482, 484-85 (2006) (stating test for adoptive admission exception to the hearsay rule). -4- Kandetzki, 1 Va. App. 327, 329 , 338 S.E.2d 352, 353 (1986) (stating one purpose of the after-discovered evidence rule is “finality in the decision making process”). 2007Cf. Lynch v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 204, 209 , 630 S.E.2d 482, 484-85 (2006) (stating test for adoptive admission exception to the hearsay rule). -4- Kandetzki, 1 Va. App. 327, 329 , 338 S.E.2d 352, 353 (1986) (stating one purpose of the after-discovered evidence rule is “finality in the decision making process”). | 1 | 1 |
Lynch v. Com.green2 sentences2007Cf. Lynch v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 204, 209 , 630 S.E.2d 482, 484-85 (2006) (stating test for adoptive admission exception to the hearsay rule). -4- Kandetzki, 1 Va. App. 327, 329 , 338 S.E.2d 352, 353 (1986) (stating one purpose of the after-discovered evidence rule is “finality in the decision making process”). 2007Cf. Lynch v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 204, 209 , 630 S.E.2d 482, 484-85 (2006) (stating test for adoptive admission exception to the hearsay rule). -4- Kandetzki, 1 Va. App. 327, 329 , 338 S.E.2d 352, 353 (1986) (stating one purpose of the after-discovered evidence rule is “finality in the decision making process”). | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2003Lewis v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 612, 625 , 70 S.E.2d 293, 301 (1952). 2003Lewis v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 612, 625 , 70 S.E.2d 293, 301 (1952). | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1991See Powell v. Commonwealth, 133 Va. 741, 751 , 112 S.E. 657, 660 (1922) (“a failure of justice ... is not so great an evil as that there should be no certain end to litigation”). 1991See Powell v. Commonwealth, 133 Va. 741, 751 , 112 S.E. 657, 660 (1922) (“a failure of justice ... is not so great an evil as that there should be no certain end to litigation”). | 1 | 1 |
Reiber v. Duncangreen2 sentences1980Preliminarily, the Department contends (1) that, because Mrs. Wright and Mrs. Hubbard were not parties litigant, they had no standing to make the motion to vacate the original judgment; (2) that the original judgment was a default judgment and the motion to vacate alleged none of the grounds specified in Code § 8.01-428; and (3) that, if the original judgment was not a default judgment, the evidence proffered in support of the motion to vacate did not satisfy the after-discovered evidence rule announced in Reiber v. Duncan, 206 Va. 657, 663 , 145 S.E.2d 157, 161-62 (1965). 1980Preliminarily, the Department contends (1) that, because Mrs. Wright and Mrs. Hubbard were not parties litigant, they had no standing to make the motion to vacate the original judgment; (2) that the original judgment was a default judgment and the motion to vacate alleged none of the grounds specified in Code § 8.01-428; and (3) that, if the original judgment was not a default judgment, the evidence proffered in support of the motion to vacate did not satisfy the after-discovered evidence rule announced in Reiber v. Duncan, 206 Va. 657, 663 , 145 S.E.2d 157, 161-62 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Odum v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2010Odum, 225 Va. at 130 , 301 S.E.2d at 149 . 2010Odum, 225 Va. at 130 , 301 S.E.2d at 149 . | 2 | 2008–2010 |
Williams v. People's Life Insurance
green
2 sentences2003Claimants’ continued assertion that the after-discovered evidence rule, as required by Rule 3.3 of the Rules of the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission, and Williams, 19 Va.App. 530 , 452 S.E.2d 881 , applies to this case is incorrect. 2003Claimants’ continued assertion that the after-discovered evidence rule, as required by Rule 3.3 of the Rules of the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission, and Williams, 19 Va.App. 530 , 452 S.E.2d 881 , applies to this case is incorrect. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.