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.
6 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morris v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2014A trial court’s decision to reopen or reconsider prior rulings while it has jurisdiction over a case is reviewed “under the highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. (citing Hawthorne v. VanMarter, 279 Va. 566 , 577 (2010); Odum v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 123, 132 (1983); Morris v. Morris, 3 Va. App. 303, 307 (1986)). 2014“An abuse of discretion occurs only when reasonable jurists could not disagree as to the proper decision.” Id. (citing Brandau v. Brandau, 52 Va. App. 632, 641 (2008) (internal quotations omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
Odum v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2014A trial court’s decision to reopen or reconsider prior rulings while it has jurisdiction over a case is reviewed “under the highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. (citing Hawthorne v. VanMarter, 279 Va. 566 , 577 (2010); Odum v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 123, 132 (1983); Morris v. Morris, 3 Va. App. 303, 307 (1986)). 2013See Hawthorne v. VanMarter, 279 Va. 566 , 577, 692 S.E.2d 226, 233 (2010); Odum v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 123, 132 , 301 S.E.2d 145, 150 (1983); Morris v. Morris, 3 Va.App. 303, 307 , 349 S.E.2d 661, 663 (1986). | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2014The highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of appellate review “means that the trial judge’s ruling will not be reversed simply because an appellate court disagrees.” Thomas, 44 Va. App. at 753 , 607 S.E.2d at 743 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 2014The highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of appellate review “means that the trial judge’s ruling will not be reversed simply because an appellate court disagrees.” Thomas, 44 Va. App. at 753 , 607 S.E.2d at 743 (internal quotations and citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Brandau v. Brandaugreen1 sentence2014“An abuse of discretion occurs only when reasonable jurists could not disagree as to the proper decision.” Id. (citing Brandau v. Brandau, 52 Va. App. 632, 641 (2008) (internal quotations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Hawthorne v. VanMartergreen1 sentence2013See Hawthorne v. VanMarter, 279 Va. 566 , 577, 692 S.E.2d 226, 233 (2010); Odum v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 123, 132 , 301 S.E.2d 145, 150 (1983); Morris v. Morris, 3 Va.App. 303, 307 , 349 S.E.2d 661, 663 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Richard Douglas Thomas, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
green
2 sentences2026Thus, “whether the court should do so is a matter we review under the highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. at 111 . 2025“But whether the court should do so is a matter we review under the highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. | 3 | 2025–2026 |
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.