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 4 courts 1922–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Timothy Kenneth Bartley v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2023Rule 5A:20(e) requires that the opening brief include “the argument (including principles of law and authorities) relating to each assignment of error.” “[I]t is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her, and where a party fails to develop an argument in support of his or her contention or merely constructs a skeletal argument, the issue is waived.” Bartley v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 740, 746 (2017) (quoting Sneed v. Bd. of Prof. | 1 | 1 |
Baumann v. Capoziogreen1 sentence2006See id. | 1 | 1 |
McMahon v. Harmon (In Re Harmon)green1 sentence2003In re Harmon, 213 B.R. 805, 807-08 (Bankr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Perlin v. Chappell
green
2 sentences2008In Perlin v. Chappell, 198 Va. 861 , 96 S.E.2d 805 (1957), the owner of a stockyard in the City of Norfolk failed to prevent the escape of a frightened 1100-pound heifer from a fenced enclosure. 2008In Perlin v. Chappell, 198 Va. 861 , 96 S.E.2d 805 (1957), the owner of a stockyard in the City of Norfolk failed to prevent the escape of a frightened 1100-pound heifer from a fenced enclosure. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Dunn v. United States
green
2 sentences2002Citing “the two-witness rule, under which ‘the uncorroborated oath of one witness is not enough to establish the falsity of the testimony of the accused,’ ” Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100 , 108 n. 6, 99 S.Ct. 2190 , 60 L.Ed.2d 743 (1979) (citation omitted), the United States Supreme Court noted that “the strict common law requirements for establishing falsity ... often [makes] prosecution for false statements exceptionally difficult.” Id. at 108 , 99 S.Ct. 2190 . 2002Citing “the two-witness rule, under which ‘the uncorroborated oath of one witness is not enough to establish the falsity of the testimony of the accused,’ ” Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100 , 108 n. 6, 99 S.Ct. 2190 , 60 L.Ed.2d 743 (1979) (citation omitted), the United States Supreme Court noted that “the strict common law requirements for establishing falsity ... often [makes] prosecution for false statements exceptionally difficult.” Id. at 108 , 99 S.Ct. 2190 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Lackland
green
1 sentence1962“At law, the creditor rests under no obligation to look to the *809 principal or to his property, or to exhaust his remedies against him before resorting to the surety.....” “It is likewise well settled that the failure of the creditor to file a proof of claim in bankruptcy against the debtor’s estate does not release the surety.” Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Lackland, supra, 175 Va., at p. 187 & p. 189. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Trippe v. Provident Fund Society
green
2 sentences1922And in Flanders on Fire Insurance, at page 542, it is said: “The refusal to recognize the evidence of any claim, or a general refusal to pay, renders the delivery of notice and proofs a useless ceremony, and is treated as waiving a strict compliance with the condition as to the preliminary notice and proof, both in respect to form and time.” The New York court held in Trippe v. Provident Fund Society, 140 N. Y. 23 , 35 N. E. 316 , 22 L. 1922And in Flanders on Fire Insurance, at page 542, it is said: “The refusal to recognize the evidence of any claim, or a general refusal to pay, renders the delivery of notice and proofs a useless ceremony, and is treated as waiving a strict compliance with the condition as to the preliminary notice and proof, both in respect to form and time.” The New York court held in Trippe v. Provident Fund Society, 140 N. Y. 23 , 35 N. E. 316 , 22 L. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.