7 Virginia opinions name it 4 courts 2002–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bchara v. Bcharagreen2 sentences2004She argues the separation did not occur until she actually moved out of the house. - 18 - Whether and when the parties “‘lived separate and apart without cohabitation’ is a fact-based inquiry, requiring examination of all the circumstances before the court.” Bchara, 38 Va. App. at 310 , 563 S.E.2d at 402 (referring to Code § 20-91(A)(9)(a)). 2004She argues the separation did not occur until she actually moved out of the house. - 18 - Whether and when the parties “‘lived separate and apart without cohabitation’ is a fact-based inquiry, requiring examination of all the circumstances before the court.” Bchara, 38 Va. App. at 310 , 563 S.E.2d at 402 (referring to Code § 20-91(A)(9)(a)). | 2 | 4 |
Bennett v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2026See Bennett, 212 Va. at 865 . | 1 | 1 |
Wade v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2020See Roach v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 741, 747-48 (2008) (Code § 19.2-294 did not apply because the “misdemeanor and felony obstruction of justice charges arose from two separate acts, committed by appellant at different times, and in different geographical locations.”); Wade v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 359, 363-65 (1990) (Where both the obstruction of justice charge and the attempted murder charge arose from the same act of firing a gun, the subsequent charge violated Code § 19.2-294 and further noting that the statute “speaks to ‘acts’ of the accused, not elements of the offense.”). | 1 | 1 |
Roach v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2020See Roach v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 741, 747-48 (2008) (Code § 19.2-294 did not apply because the “misdemeanor and felony obstruction of justice charges arose from two separate acts, committed by appellant at different times, and in different geographical locations.”); Wade v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 359, 363-65 (1990) (Where both the obstruction of justice charge and the attempted murder charge arose from the same act of firing a gun, the subsequent charge violated Code § 19.2-294 and further noting that the statute “speaks to ‘acts’ of the accused, not elements of the offense.”). | 1 | 1 |
Rickman v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2002Cf. Rickman v. Commonwealth, 33 Va.App. 550, 557-58 , 535 S.E.2d 187, 191 (2000) (discussing the factors a court should consider to determine whether two people are cohabiting for purposes of Code § 18.2-57.2)i Husband argues the parties did not live separate and apart until May 2000, when wife served husband with divorce papers. 2002Cf. Rickman v. Commonwealth, 33 Va.App. 550, 557-58 , 535 S.E.2d 187, 191 (2000) (discussing the factors a court should consider to determine whether two people are cohabiting for purposes of Code § 18.2-57.2)i Husband argues the parties did not live separate and apart until May 2000, when wife served husband with divorce papers. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.