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.
7 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hudson v. Pillowgreen2 sentences2015This is because non-substantive alterations "do not permit the appellant to argue a different issue on appeal," and thus "we may properly consider [such] modified assignments of error." Id.; see also, e.g., Hudson v. Pillow, 261 Va. 296 , 301-02, 541 S.E.2d 556 , 560 (2001). 2015This is because non-substantive alterations "do not permit the appellant to argue a different issue on appeal," and thus "we may properly consider [such] modified assignments of error." Id.; see also, e.g., Hudson v. Pillow, 261 Va. 296 , 301-02, 541 S.E.2d 556 , 560 (2001). | 2 | 2 |
Clifford v. Com.green1 sentence2025See Clifford, 274 Va. at 25 (applying Rule 5A:12); Osman v. Commonwealth, 76 Va. App. 613 , 672 (2023) (observing that “appellate review of an objection not ‘stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling’ by the trial court” is “preclude[d]” (quoting Rule 5A:18)); Jones v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 597 , 607 n.9 (2020) (noting that this Court does not apply the good-cause and ends-of-justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18 sua sponte). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Hyltongreen1 sentence2022Cf. Henderson v. Cook, 297 Va. 699 , 707 (2019) (recognizing that in an appeal by petition, the appellate court can permit the amendment of a granted assignment of error); Riner v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 440, 454-55 (2003) (concluding that the Court may “exercise[e] jurisdiction over assignments of error added to the petition, with leave of court, at a later date” provided that “the Court has acquired jurisdiction over the appeal via timely filing of the original petition for appeal”), aff’d on other grounds, 268 Va. 296 (2004). -8- ‘prejudiced’ the proffering party.” Id. (quoting Molina, 4 | 1 | 1 |
Riner v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2022Cf. Henderson v. Cook, 297 Va. 699 , 707 (2019) (recognizing that in an appeal by petition, the appellate court can permit the amendment of a granted assignment of error); Riner v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 440, 454-55 (2003) (concluding that the Court may “exercise[e] jurisdiction over assignments of error added to the petition, with leave of court, at a later date” provided that “the Court has acquired jurisdiction over the appeal via timely filing of the original petition for appeal”), aff’d on other grounds, 268 Va. 296 (2004). -8- ‘prejudiced’ the proffering party.” Id. (quoting Molina, 4 | 1 | 1 |
Patrick Darnell Hill v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2018See McCain v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 483, 490 , 545 S.E.2d 541, 545 (2001); Hill v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 610 , 616-17, 812 S.E.2d 452, 455 (2018). 7 To the extent appellant asserts that this ruling was error, it is not part of the granted assignment of error and we will not consider it. | 1 | 1 |
McCain v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2018See McCain v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 483, 490 , 545 S.E.2d 541, 545 (2001); Hill v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 610 , 616-17, 812 S.E.2d 452, 455 (2018). 7 To the extent appellant asserts that this ruling was error, it is not part of the granted assignment of error and we will not consider it. 2018See McCain v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 483, 490 , 545 S.E.2d 541, 545 (2001); Hill v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 610 , 616-17, 812 S.E.2d 452, 455 (2018). 7 To the extent appellant asserts that this ruling was error, it is not part of the granted assignment of error and we will not consider it. | 1 | 1 |
White v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2015See White v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 96, 103 , 591 S.E.2d 662, 665-66 (2004) (stating that, unless leave of court is granted, “[i]t is impermissible for an appellant to change the wording of an assignment of error”). 2015See White v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 96, 103 , 591 S.E.2d 662, 665-66 (2004) (stating that, unless leave of court is granted, “[i]t is impermissible for an appellant to change the wording of an assignment of error”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Riner v. Com.
green
2 sentences2022Cf. Henderson v. Cook, 297 Va. 699 , 707 (2019) (recognizing that in an appeal by petition, the appellate court can permit the amendment of a granted assignment of error); Riner v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 440, 454-55 (2003) (concluding that the Court may “exercise[e] jurisdiction over assignments of error added to the petition, with leave of court, at a later date” provided that “the Court has acquired jurisdiction over the appeal via timely filing of the original petition for appeal”), aff’d on other grounds, 268 Va. 296 (2004). -8- ‘prejudiced’ the proffering party.” Id. (quoting Molina, 4 2022Cf. Henderson v. Cook, 297 Va. 699 , 707 (2019) (recognizing that in an appeal by petition, the appellate court can permit the amendment of a granted assignment of error); Riner v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 440, 454-55 (2003) (concluding that the Court may “exercise[e] jurisdiction over assignments of error added to the petition, with leave of court, at a later date” provided that “the Court has acquired jurisdiction over the appeal via timely filing of the original petition for appeal”), aff’d on other grounds, 268 Va. 296 (2004). -8- ‘prejudiced’ the proffering party.” Id. (quoting Molina, 4 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Molina v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2022Cf. Henderson v. Cook, 297 Va. 699 , 707 (2019) (recognizing that in an appeal by petition, the appellate court can permit the amendment of a granted assignment of error); Riner v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 440, 454-55 (2003) (concluding that the Court may “exercise[e] jurisdiction over assignments of error added to the petition, with leave of court, at a later date” provided that “the Court has acquired jurisdiction over the appeal via timely filing of the original petition for appeal”), aff’d on other grounds, 268 Va. 296 (2004). -8- ‘prejudiced’ the proffering party.” Id. (quoting Molina, 4 2022Cf. Henderson v. Cook, 297 Va. 699 , 707 (2019) (recognizing that in an appeal by petition, the appellate court can permit the amendment of a granted assignment of error); Riner v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 440, 454-55 (2003) (concluding that the Court may “exercise[e] jurisdiction over assignments of error added to the petition, with leave of court, at a later date” provided that “the Court has acquired jurisdiction over the appeal via timely filing of the original petition for appeal”), aff’d on other grounds, 268 Va. 296 (2004). -8- ‘prejudiced’ the proffering party.” Id. (quoting Molina, 4 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Santen v. Tuthill
green
2 sentences2019"In his opening brief, however, the second assignment of error is stated in a different sequence: 'The Circuit Court erred when it ruled Escamilla's petition was not timely and granted the Superintendent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.' " Id . 6 The granted assignment of error from Santen's petition for appeal read: "The Trial Court Erred in Excluding the Testimony of Richard McGarry, Plaintiff's Specially Retained Expert, who was to Testify Regarding the Reliability of the Alcosensor used to Determine Wilfong's Blood Alcohol Content, and was to Testify how Defendant Glenn Wilfon 2019"In his opening brief, however, the second assignment of error is stated in a different sequence: 'The Circuit Court erred when it ruled Escamilla's petition was not timely and granted the Superintendent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.' " Id . 6 The granted assignment of error from Santen's petition for appeal read: "The Trial Court Erred in Excluding the Testimony of Richard McGarry, Plaintiff's Specially Retained Expert, who was to Testify Regarding the Reliability of the Alcosensor used to Determine Wilfong's Blood Alcohol Content, and was to Testify how Defendant Glenn Wilfon | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.