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 3 courts 1833–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Independent Investor Protective League v. Time, Inc.green1 sentence2025Protective League v. Time, Inc., 406 N.E.2d 486, 488 (N.Y. 1980) (“[A] shareholder of a dissolved corporation has sufficient interest in a derivative action to satisfy the spirit of the rule requiring ownership at the commencement of the action.”), with, e.g., Fisher v. Liniger, No. 16CV30786, 2016 Colo. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Ellison v. Weintrobgreen1 sentence2015Ellison v. Weintraub, 139 Va. 29, 34-35 (1924) (quoting Watson v. Lyle’s Adm’r, 4 Leigh (31 Va.) 236, 249 (1833)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Freeland v. Heron, Lenox & Co.
green
2 sentences1833Saund. 127, d. e. note 7; Freeland v. Heron &c., 7 Cranch, 147 . 1833Saund. 127, d. e. note 7; Freeland v. Heron &c., 7 Cranch, 147 . | 3 | 1833–1833 |
Knight v. Watts's Adm'rs
neutral
1 sentence1943The appellant relies upon Knight v. Watts, 26 W. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Winship v. the Bank of the United States
green
1 sentence1856In opposition to Forrester v. Pigou, sustained by a great preponderance of authority, as well as by reason and good sense, the appellant’s counsel cited, and, as it seemed to me, mainly, if not exclusively, relied on, Winship v. Bank U. S, 5 Peters, 529, 552 , (a case similar to that cited from 14 Pickering,) in which the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States were divided in opinion as to the admissibility of one who becomes interested after he has witnessed an instrument, and no judgment was given on the point, and Burgess v. Layne et al., 3 Greenl. 165, Maine Reports, in which the | 1 | 1856–1856 |
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.