7 Virginia opinions name it 3 courts 1959–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Button v. Daygreen2 sentences2011Button v. Day, 208 Va. 494, 495-505 , 158 S.E.2d 735, 736-42 (1968) is the only decision of this Court holding that a challenged funding scheme was in violation of the credit clause. 2011Button v. Day, 208 Va. 494, 495-505 , 158 S.E.2d 735, 736-42 (1968) is the only decision of this Court holding that a challenged funding scheme was in violation of the credit clause. | 1 | 3 |
Harrison v. Daygreen2 sentences1984To similar effect is Harrison v. Day, 200 Va. 750, 754 , 107 S.E.2d 585, 587-88 (1959), a credit clause case which quotes with approval the following language from Ex Parte Settle, 114 Va. 715, 719 , 77 S.E. 496, 497 (1913): "Every presumption is made in favor of the constitutionality of an act of the legislature. 1984To similar effect is Harrison v. Day, 200 Va. 750, 754 , 107 S.E.2d 585, 587-88 (1959), a credit clause case which quotes with approval the following language from Ex Parte Settle, 114 Va. 715, 719 , 77 S.E. 496, 497 (1913): "Every presumption is made in favor of the constitutionality of an act of the legislature. | 1 | 2 |
Bannock County v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences2011And that is the sense, then, in which the language employed in those sections must be understood, and so understood, no county, for example, shall lend or pledge its credit or faith directly or indirectly, or in any manner which would create the customary relation of borrower and lender." *304 Almond I, 197 Va. at 790-91 , 91 S.E.2d at 667 (quoting Bannock County v. Citizens' Bank and Trust Co., 53 Idaho 159 , 22 P.2d 674, 680 (1933)). 2011And that is the sense, then, in which the language employed in those sections must be understood, and so understood, no county, for example, shall lend or pledge its credit or faith directly or indirectly, or in any manner which would create the customary relation of borrower and lender." *304 Almond I, 197 Va. at 790-91 , 91 S.E.2d at 667 (quoting Bannock County v. Citizens' Bank and Trust Co., 53 Idaho 159 , 22 P.2d 674, 680 (1933)). | 1 | 1 |
Reasor v. City of Norfolk, Va.green2 sentences2011See Reasor v. City of Norfolk, 606 F.Supp. 788, 795-97 (E.D.Va.1984) (in deciding whether the challenged activities violated the credit clause, federal district court, relying on Almond I, explained that term "credit" under Article X, Section 10 "refers to the relation of borrower and lender, in which money is borrowed to be repaid at a later date"). 2011See Reasor v. City of Norfolk, 606 F.Supp. 788, 795-97 (E.D.Va.1984) (in deciding whether the challenged activities violated the credit clause, federal district court, relying on Almond I, explained that term "credit" under Article X, Section 10 "refers to the relation of borrower and lender, in which money is borrowed to be repaid at a later date"). | 1 | 1 |
Sarah Sweep v. Lear Jet Corporationgreen1 sentence2002Sweep v. Lear Jet Corp., 412 F.2d 457, 461 (5th Cir. 1969). | 1 | 1 |
Ex parte Settlegreen2 sentences1984To similar effect is Harrison v. Day, 200 Va. 750, 754 , 107 S.E.2d 585, 587-88 (1959), a credit clause case which quotes with approval the following language from Ex Parte Settle, 114 Va. 715, 719 , 77 S.E. 496, 497 (1913): "Every presumption is made in favor of the constitutionality of an act of the legislature. 1984To similar effect is Harrison v. Day, 200 Va. 750, 754 , 107 S.E.2d 585, 587-88 (1959), a credit clause case which quotes with approval the following language from Ex Parte Settle, 114 Va. 715, 719 , 77 S.E. 496, 497 (1913): "Every presumption is made in favor of the constitutionality of an act of the legislature. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Almond v. Day
green
2 sentences2009The record amply supports the conclusion that under the appropriate credit clause analysis, the Commonwealth’s “animating purpose and the object it was designed to accomplish” is to serve a number of public purposes for the Commonwealth’s benefit, and any benefit that might accrue to Norfolk Southern is only “incidental.” Almond I, 197 Va. at 791 , 91 S.E.2d at 667 . 2009The record amply supports the conclusion that under the appropriate credit clause analysis, the Commonwealth’s “animating purpose and the object it was designed to accomplish” is to serve a number of public purposes for the Commonwealth’s benefit, and any benefit that might accrue to Norfolk Southern is only “incidental.” Almond I, 197 Va. at 791 , 91 S.E.2d at 667 . | 6 | 1959–2011 |
City of Charlottesville v. DeHaan
green
2 sentences2009City of Charlottesville v. DeHaan, 228 Va. 578 , 323 S.E.2d 131 (1989). 2009City of Charlottesville v. DeHaan, 228 Va. 578 , 323 S.E.2d 131 (1989). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Button v. Day
green
2 sentences1968To like effect was the holding in Button v. Day, 205 Va. 629 , 139 S. E. 2d 91 , involving port facilities at Newport News, where the enabling act creating the Peninsula Ports Authority of Virginia authorized the authority to pledge to the payment of its revenue bonds money from “time to time” appropriated to the authority by the General Assembly and the city of Newport News. 1968To like effect was the holding in Button v. Day, 205 Va. 629 , 139 S. E. 2d 91 , involving port facilities at Newport News, where the enabling act creating the Peninsula Ports Authority of Virginia authorized the authority to pledge to the payment of its revenue bonds money from “time to time” appropriated to the authority by the General Assembly and the city of Newport News. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Fairfax County Industrial Development Authority v. Coyner
green
2 sentences1968In Development Authority v. Coyner, 207 Va. 351 , 150 S. E. 2d 87 , the board of supervisors of Fairfax County appropriated $10,000 to the Fairfax County Industrial Development Authority, pursuant to an act creating the authority as a political subdivision of the State and authorizing the county “to make appropriations and provide funds for the operation of the Authority.” The authority proposed to issue its revenue bonds and from the proceeds thereof to repay the $10,000 appropriated by the county and to construct an industrial plant for lease to a private firm. 1968In Development Authority v. Coyner, 207 Va. 351 , 150 S. E. 2d 87 , the board of supervisors of Fairfax County appropriated $10,000 to the Fairfax County Industrial Development Authority, pursuant to an act creating the authority as a political subdivision of the State and authorizing the county “to make appropriations and provide funds for the operation of the Authority.” The authority proposed to issue its revenue bonds and from the proceeds thereof to repay the $10,000 appropriated by the county and to construct an industrial plant for lease to a private firm. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Holston Corp. v. Wise County
green
2 sentences1968It was clearly indicated, however, that the result would have been different if the object of the contract had been to enable any of the road contractors “to obtain the stone on the credit of the county, when upon their own credit they could not have obtained it.” [Emphasis added.] 131 Va., at 157 , 109 S. E., at 184 . 1968It was clearly indicated, however, that the result would have been different if the object of the contract had been to enable any of the road contractors “to obtain the stone on the credit of the county, when upon their own credit they could not have obtained it.” [Emphasis added.] 131 Va., at 157 , 109 S. E., at 184 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Carter
green
2 sentences1968In U. S. Fidelity Co. v. Carter, 161 Va. 381 , 170 S. E. 764 , we held that the deposit by a county of tax funds in a local bank was not violative of the credit clause where the deposit was in the usual course of business, for the county’s convenience, and not as a device to lend the credit of the county to the bank for the purpose of aiding the latter. 1968In U. S. Fidelity Co. v. Carter, 161 Va. 381 , 170 S. E. 764 , we held that the deposit by a county of tax funds in a local bank was not violative of the credit clause where the deposit was in the usual course of business, for the county’s convenience, and not as a device to lend the credit of the county to the bank for the purpose of aiding the latter. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Harrison v. Day
green
2 sentences1968In Harrison v. Day, 202 Va. 967 , 121 S. E. 2d 615 , the Virginia State Ports Authority was authorized to acquire, construct, and operate port facilities, financing such work by the sale of bonds payable solely from the revenues derived from the project. 1968In Harrison v. Day, 202 Va. 967 , 121 S. E. 2d 615 , the Virginia State Ports Authority was authorized to acquire, construct, and operate port facilities, financing such work by the sale of bonds payable solely from the revenues derived from the project. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.