48 Virginia opinions name it 8 courts 1920–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lannon v. Lee Conner Realty Corp.green2 sentences2018The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to appellee noting that appellant was “not the prevailing party.” Appellant seized upon this phrase, arguing that this Court must adhere to the “American rule;” that rule provides that “ordinarily attorneys’ fees are not recoverable by a prevailing litigant in the absence of a specific contractual or statutory provision to the contrary.” Mayer v. Corso-Mayer, 62 Va. App. 713, 733 , 753 S.E.2d 263, 272 (2014) (quoting Lannon v. Lee Conner Realty Corp., 238 Va. 590, 594 , 385 S.E.2d 380, 383 (1989)). 2018The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to appellee noting that appellant was “not the prevailing party.” Appellant seized upon this phrase, arguing that this Court must adhere to the “American rule;” that rule provides that “ordinarily attorneys’ fees are not recoverable by a prevailing litigant in the absence of a specific contractual or statutory provision to the contrary.” Mayer v. Corso-Mayer, 62 Va. App. 713, 733 , 753 S.E.2d 263, 272 (2014) (quoting Lannon v. Lee Conner Realty Corp., 238 Va. 590, 594 , 385 S.E.2d 380, 383 (1989)). | 8 | 13 |
Ulloa v. Qsp, Inc.green2 sentences2025ATTORNEY FEES Father argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees to mother “without an evidentiary basis.” Virginia courts operate under the “American rule” where “a prevailing party generally cannot recover attorney’s fees from the losing party.” Dewberry & Davis, Inc. v. C3NS, Inc., 284 Va. 485 , 495 (2012) (quoting Ulloa v. QSP, Inc., 271 Va. 72, 81 (2006)). 2024“Under the so-called ‘American rule,’ a prevailing party generally cannot recover attorney[] fees from the losing party.” Ulloa v. QSP, Inc., 271 Va. 72, 81 (2006) (quoting Lee v. Mulford, 269 Va. 562, 565 (2005)). | 4 | 5 |
Bruce M. Mayer v. Linda Corso-Mayergreen2 sentences2018The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to appellee noting that appellant was “not the prevailing party.” Appellant seized upon this phrase, arguing that this Court must adhere to the “American rule;” that rule provides that “ordinarily attorneys’ fees are not recoverable by a prevailing litigant in the absence of a specific contractual or statutory provision to the contrary.” Mayer v. Corso-Mayer, 62 Va. App. 713, 733 , 753 S.E.2d 263, 272 (2014) (quoting Lannon v. Lee Conner Realty Corp., 238 Va. 590, 594 , 385 S.E.2d 380, 383 (1989)). 2018The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to appellee noting that appellant was “not the prevailing party.” Appellant seized upon this phrase, arguing that this Court must adhere to the “American rule;” that rule provides that “ordinarily attorneys’ fees are not recoverable by a prevailing litigant in the absence of a specific contractual or statutory provision to the contrary.” Mayer v. Corso-Mayer, 62 Va. App. 713, 733 , 753 S.E.2d 263, 272 (2014) (quoting Lannon v. Lee Conner Realty Corp., 238 Va. 590, 594 , 385 S.E.2d 380, 383 (1989)). | 3 | 3 |
Lee v. Mulfordgreen2 sentences2024“Under the so-called ‘American rule,’ a prevailing party generally cannot recover attorney[] fees from the losing party.” Ulloa v. QSP, Inc., 271 Va. 72, 81 (2006) (quoting Lee v. Mulford, 269 Va. 562, 565 (2005)). 2024“Under the so-called ‘American rule,’ a prevailing party generally cannot recover attorney[] fees from the losing party.” Ulloa v. QSP, Inc., 271 Va. 72, 81 (2006) (quoting Lee v. Mulford, 269 Va. 562, 565 (2005)). | 2 | 5 |
REVI, LLC v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.green2 sentences2026Co., 290 Va. 203, 213 (2015)). 2026Co., 290 Va. 203, 213 (2015)). | 2 | 2 |
Tyszcenko v. Donatelligreen2 sentences2018“In Virginia, Code §§ 20-79(b) and [former] 20-99(5) provide the statutory basis for the broad discretionary authority [trial] courts have to award attorney’s fees and other costs as the equities of a divorce case and its ancillary proceedings may require.” Tyszcenko v. Donatelli, 53 Va. App. 209, 222 , 670 S.E.2d 49, 56 (2008). 2018“In Virginia, Code §§ 20-79(b) and [former] 20-99(5) provide the statutory basis for the broad discretionary authority [trial] courts have to award attorney’s fees and other costs as the equities of a divorce case and its ancillary proceedings may require.” Tyszcenko v. Donatelli, 53 Va. App. 209, 222 , 670 S.E.2d 49, 56 (2008). | 2 | 2 |
West Square v. Communication Technologiesgreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., West Square, L.L.C. v. Communication Technologies, Inc., 274 Va. 425, 433 , 649 S.E.2d 698 (2007) (“Under the so-called ‘American rule,’ a prevailing party generally cannot recover attorneys’ fees from the losing party. 2008See, e.g., West Square, L.L.C. v. Communication Technologies, Inc., 274 Va. 425, 433 , 649 S.E.2d 698 (2007) (“Under the so-called ‘American rule,’ a prevailing party generally cannot recover attorneys’ fees from the losing party. | 2 | 2 |
Miller v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1998Kauffmann v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 400, 409 , 382 S.E.2d 279, 283 (1989) (citing Miller v. Commonwealth, 5 Va.App. 22, 24 , 359 S.E.2d 841, 842 (1987) (other citations omitted)). 1998Kauffmann v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 400, 409 , 382 S.E.2d 279, 283 (1989) (citing Miller v. Commonwealth, 5 Va.App. 22, 24 , 359 S.E.2d 841, 842 (1987) (other citations omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
Kauffmann v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1998Kauffmann v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 400, 409 , 382 S.E.2d 279, 283 (1989) (citing Miller v. Commonwealth, 5 Va.App. 22, 24 , 359 S.E.2d 841, 842 (1987) (other citations omitted)). 1998Kauffmann v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 400, 409 , 382 S.E.2d 279, 283 (1989) (citing Miller v. Commonwealth, 5 Va.App. 22, 24 , 359 S.E.2d 841, 842 (1987) (other citations omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Irvinggreen2 sentences2023“Under ‘the American rule’ applied in this Commonwealth, the cross-examination of a witness is limited to matters elicited on direct examination.” Smith v. Irving, 268 Va. 496, 501 (2004). 2023“Under ‘the American rule’ applied in this Commonwealth, the cross-examination of a witness is limited to matters elicited on direct examination.” Smith v. Irving, 268 Va. 496, 501 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Dodge v. United Services Automobile Ass'ngreen1 sentence2021Assn., 417 A.2d 969, 976 (Me. 1980) (“[L]awyers who wish to swim against the tide of the American rule are perfectly capable of including an express undertaking that the damages resulting from any breach of the settlement agreement shall include attorney's fees.”). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 414481green2 sentences2021By contrast, other jurisdictions have recognized that the American rule against the award of attorney’s fees in the absence of a statutory or contractual right does not apply to “those cases in which attorney fees are not awarded to the successful litigant in the case at hand, but rather are the subject of the lawsuit itself.” Zuniga v. United Cav Co., 812 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, etc., Local Union No. 377, 700 F.2d 1067, 1072 (6th Cir. 1983); Paper, Allied, Chem. & Energy Workers Int'l Union, Local 5- 508 v. Slurry Explosiv 2021By contrast, other jurisdictions have recognized that the American rule against the award of attorney’s fees in the absence of a statutory or contractual right does not apply to “those cases in which attorney fees are not awarded to the successful litigant in the case at hand, but rather are the subject of the lawsuit itself.” Zuniga v. United Cav Co., 812 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, etc., Local Union No. 377, 700 F.2d 1067, 1072 (6th Cir. 1983); Paper, Allied, Chem. & Energy Workers Int'l Union, Local 5- 508 v. Slurry Explosiv | 1 | 1 |
Jesus Zuniga v. United Can Company and Driver-Salesmen, Produce Workers, and Helpers, Local 588, Retail Delivery Driversgreen2 sentences2021By contrast, other jurisdictions have recognized that the American rule against the award of attorney’s fees in the absence of a statutory or contractual right does not apply to “those cases in which attorney fees are not awarded to the successful litigant in the case at hand, but rather are the subject of the lawsuit itself.” Zuniga v. United Cav Co., 812 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, etc., Local Union No. 377, 700 F.2d 1067, 1072 (6th Cir. 1983); Paper, Allied, Chem. & Energy Workers Int'l Union, Local 5- 508 v. Slurry Explosiv 2021By contrast, other jurisdictions have recognized that the American rule against the award of attorney’s fees in the absence of a statutory or contractual right does not apply to “those cases in which attorney fees are not awarded to the successful litigant in the case at hand, but rather are the subject of the lawsuit itself.” Zuniga v. United Cav Co., 812 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, etc., Local Union No. 377, 700 F.2d 1067, 1072 (6th Cir. 1983); Paper, Allied, Chem. & Energy Workers Int'l Union, Local 5- 508 v. Slurry Explosiv | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Wagner & Sonsgreen1 sentence2021Unit Owners Ass’n, 277 Va. 359, 366 (2009); Buchanan v. Buchanan, 266 Va. 207, 212 (2003); Bruce v. Dean, 149 Va. 39, 46 (1927); Johnson v. Wagner, 76 Va. 587, 590 (1882). | 1 | 1 |
Bruce v. Deangreen1 sentence2021Unit Owners Ass’n, 277 Va. 359, 366 (2009); Buchanan v. Buchanan, 266 Va. 207, 212 (2003); Bruce v. Dean, 149 Va. 39, 46 (1927); Johnson v. Wagner, 76 Va. 587, 590 (1882). | 1 | 1 |
Luria v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WESTBRIARgreen1 sentence2021Unit Owners Ass’n, 277 Va. 359, 366 (2009); Buchanan v. Buchanan, 266 Va. 207, 212 (2003); Bruce v. Dean, 149 Va. 39, 46 (1927); Johnson v. Wagner, 76 Va. 587, 590 (1882). | 1 | 1 |
Buchanan v. Buchanangreen1 sentence2021Unit Owners Ass’n, 277 Va. 359, 366 (2009); Buchanan v. Buchanan, 266 Va. 207, 212 (2003); Bruce v. Dean, 149 Va. 39, 46 (1927); Johnson v. Wagner, 76 Va. 587, 590 (1882). | 1 | 1 |
Paper, Allied, Chemical & Energy Workers International Union, Local 5-508 v. Slurry Explosive Corp.green2 sentences2021By contrast, other jurisdictions have recognized that the American rule against the award of attorney’s fees in the absence of a statutory or contractual right does not apply to “those cases in which attorney fees are not awarded to the successful litigant in the case at hand, but rather are the subject of the lawsuit itself.” Zuniga v. United Cav Co., 812 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, etc., Local Union No. 377, 700 F.2d 1067, 1072 (6th Cir. 1983); Paper, Allied, Chem. & Energy Workers Int'l Union, Local 5- 508 v. Slurry Explosiv 2021By contrast, other jurisdictions have recognized that the American rule against the award of attorney’s fees in the absence of a statutory or contractual right does not apply to “those cases in which attorney fees are not awarded to the successful litigant in the case at hand, but rather are the subject of the lawsuit itself.” Zuniga v. United Cav Co., 812 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, etc., Local Union No. 377, 700 F.2d 1067, 1072 (6th Cir. 1983); Paper, Allied, Chem. & Energy Workers Int'l Union, Local 5- 508 v. Slurry Explosiv | 1 | 1 |
Dowling v. Rowangreen1 sentence2015E.g., Dowling v. Rowan, 270 Va. 510, 521-22 (2005) (“We adhere to the ‘American rule’ which embodies the principle that each litigant must pay his own attorney’s fees in the absence of a statute or contractual provision that would shift the burden of payment to the unsuccessful party.”). | 1 | 1 |
Servicios Comerciales Andinos, S.A. v. General Electric Del Caribe, Inc.green1 sentence2014See Servicios Comerciales Andinos, S.A. v. GE Del Caribe, 145 F.3d 463 , 481 n. 9 (1st Cir.1998) (“[A] ‘loser pays’ rule could be conceived of as adding an award of attorney’s fees to the recovery provided by the underlying cause of action.”). *733 However, Virginia law consistently adheres to the “American rule,” which holds that, “ordinarily, attorneys’ fees are not recoverable by a prevailing litigant in the absence of a specific contractual or statutory provision to the contrary.” Lannon v. Lee Conner Realty Corp., 238 Va. 590, 594 , 385 S.E.2d 380, 383 (1989); see also Buckhannon Bd. & Ca | 1 | 1 |
Jeroski v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commissiongreen1 sentence2014Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 697 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir.2012) (explaining that the “American rule” is “distinct from England’s ‘loser pays’ rule”). | 1 | 1 |
Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resourcesgreen2 sentences2014Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 602 , 121 S.Ct. 1835, 1839 , 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (“In the United States, parties are ordinarily required to bear their own attorney’s fees—the prevailing party is not entitled to collect from the loser.”); Jeroski v. Fed. 2014Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 602 , 121 S.Ct. 1835, 1839 , 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (“In the United States, parties are ordinarily required to bear their own attorney’s fees—the prevailing party is not entitled to collect from the loser.”); Jeroski v. Fed. | 1 | 1 |
PINEY MEETING HOUSE INVESTMENTS v. Hartgreen2 sentences2013Piney Meeting House Invs., Inc. v. Hart, 284 Va. 187, 196 , 726 S.E.2d 319, 324 (2012). 2013Piney Meeting House Invs., Inc. v. Hart, 284 Va. 187, 196 , 726 S.E.2d 319, 324 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Nusbaum v. Berlingreen1 sentence2012ATTORNEY'S FEES The "American rule" provides that "`attorneys' fees are [ordinarily] not recoverable by a prevailing litigant in the absence of a specific contractual or statutory provision to the contrary.'" Nusbaum v. Berlin, 273 Va. 385 , 400, 641 S.E.2d 494, 501 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Richardsongreen2 sentences2011And this is . . . mainly because the one person who I feel who might be entitled to an attorney fee award is Mr. Parikh, but he’s in a much better economic situation right now than Ms. Parikh is, given the decision of this Court. * * * * * * * I know that Ms. Parikh wants an attorney fee award, but I just think the parties ought to just bear their own attorney’s fees in this case. “‘[A]n award of attorney’s fees is a matter submitted to the trial court’s sound discretion and is reviewable on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.’” Richardson v. Richardson, 30 Va. App. 341, 351 , 516 S.E.2d 7 2011And this is . . . mainly because the one person who I feel who might be entitled to an attorney fee award is Mr. Parikh, but he’s in a much better economic situation right now than Ms. Parikh is, given the decision of this Court. * * * * * * * I know that Ms. Parikh wants an attorney fee award, but I just think the parties ought to just bear their own attorney’s fees in this case. “‘[A]n award of attorney’s fees is a matter submitted to the trial court’s sound discretion and is reviewable on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.’” Richardson v. Richardson, 30 Va. App. 341, 351 , 516 S.E.2d 7 | 1 | 1 |
Graves v. Gravesgreen2 sentences2011And this is . . . mainly because the one person who I feel who might be entitled to an attorney fee award is Mr. Parikh, but he’s in a much better economic situation right now than Ms. Parikh is, given the decision of this Court. * * * * * * * I know that Ms. Parikh wants an attorney fee award, but I just think the parties ought to just bear their own attorney’s fees in this case. “‘[A]n award of attorney’s fees is a matter submitted to the trial court’s sound discretion and is reviewable on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.’” Richardson v. Richardson, 30 Va. App. 341, 351 , 516 S.E.2d 7 2011And this is . . . mainly because the one person who I feel who might be entitled to an attorney fee award is Mr. Parikh, but he’s in a much better economic situation right now than Ms. Parikh is, given the decision of this Court. * * * * * * * I know that Ms. Parikh wants an attorney fee award, but I just think the parties ought to just bear their own attorney’s fees in this case. “‘[A]n award of attorney’s fees is a matter submitted to the trial court’s sound discretion and is reviewable on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.’” Richardson v. Richardson, 30 Va. App. 341, 351 , 516 S.E.2d 7 | 1 | 1 |
| Velocity Express Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Hugengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kepner v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. Commonwealthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ramsey v. New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gilmore v. Basic Industries, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mullins v. Richlands National Bank
green
2 sentences2005E.g., Lee v. Mulford, 269 Va. 562 , 565, 611 S.E.2d 349 , 350 (2005); Mullins v. Richlands Nat'l Bank, 241 Va. 447 , 449, 403 S.E.2d 334 , 335 (1991). 2005E.g., Lee v. Mulford, 269 Va. 562 , 565, 611 S.E.2d 349 , 350 (2005); Mullins v. Richlands Nat'l Bank, 241 Va. 447 , 449, 403 S.E.2d 334 , 335 (1991). | 3 | 1999–2005 |
Duncan v. Carson
green
2 sentences1929Duncan v. Carson, 127 Va. 318 , 103 S. E. 665, 668 , 105 S. E. 62 , in which it is said: “Under What is termed the American rule, which prevails in this State, the cross-examination of witnesses is limited to matters brought out on the examination in chief. 1929Duncan v. Carson, 127 Va. 318 , 103 S. E. 665, 668 , 105 S. E. 62 , in which it is said: “Under What is termed the American rule, which prevails in this State, the cross-examination of witnesses is limited to matters brought out on the examination in chief. | 2 | 1929–2004 |
Wills v. Russell
green
2 sentences1929Wills v. Russell, 100 U. S. 621, 625 , 25 L. 1929Wills v. Russell, 100 U. S. 621, 625 , 25 L. | 2 | 1920–1929 |
Gibbs v. Randolph (In Re Randolph)
green
1 sentence2007Recognizing the absence of statutory authority for such an award, the trial court relied on its inherent power to require the losing party to pay attorney's fees when that party had "`acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons.'" Id. at 594 , 385 S.E.2d at 383 (quoting In re Randolph, 28 B.R. 811 , 813 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1983)). 6 We rejected the trial court's ruling that it had inherent power to award attorney's fees as a means of disciplining the offending litigant because, we concluded, the award was at odds with the "American rule" and our strong adherence to it. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Anderson v. Sharma green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| DuPont v. Shackelford green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Delaware Trust Company v. Everitt green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Keeble v. United States green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers' Finance Co. green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Gazzolo v. Chambers neutral | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Cobb v. Lavalle neutral | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Playter v. Cunningham green | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Meeker v. City of East Orange green | 1 | 1927–1927 |
| Heninger v. McGinnis neutral | 1 | 1927–1927 |
| Maughon v. State green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Smith v. State neutral | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Cabell v. Arnold green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| State v. Shaw green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Big Huff Coal Co. v. Thomas neutral | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.