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 2013–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Neal v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2023See Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 422 (1992). 2023See Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 422 (1992). | 3 | 3 |
Forbes v. Rappgreen2 sentences2023“An assertion that an injured party has failed to mitigate damages is an affirmative defense.” Forbes v. Rapp, 269 Va. 374, 380 (2005). 2023“An assertion that an injured party has failed to mitigate damages is an affirmative defense.” Forbes v. Rapp, 269 Va. 374, 380 (2005). | 3 | 3 |
Monahan v. Obici Medical Management Services, Inc.green2 sentences2024Servs., Inc., 271 Va. 621 (2006), he argues that Garg “failed to provide any evidence that Plaintiff Popal refused any recommended treatment or worsened his injuries.” Because he did not act contrary to express medical orders, Popal contends that the trial court erred in granting the mitigation instruction and that the error is grounds for a new trial. 2024See, e.g., Monahan, 271 Va. at 636-37 (holding that a mitigation instruction was not appropriate where the patient’s decision to go home, rather than to the emergency room, was consistent with the doctor’s advice); Chandler, 268 Va. at 681 (holding that 6 Some courts in other jurisdictions have held that a defendant asserting a failure-to- mitigate defense must show “both how [the plaintiff] could have taken action to mitigate his damages and the amount of damages that might have been avoided by his proper mitigation.” Henry v. Mitchell, 428 S.W.3d 454, 462 (Ark. 2013); Eskenazi v. Mackoul, 90 | 1 | 2 |
Henry v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., Monahan, 271 Va. at 636-37 (holding that a mitigation instruction was not appropriate where the patient’s decision to go home, rather than to the emergency room, was consistent with the doctor’s advice); Chandler, 268 Va. at 681 (holding that 6 Some courts in other jurisdictions have held that a defendant asserting a failure-to- mitigate defense must show “both how [the plaintiff] could have taken action to mitigate his damages and the amount of damages that might have been avoided by his proper mitigation.” Henry v. Mitchell, 428 S.W.3d 454, 462 (Ark. 2013); Eskenazi v. Mackoul, 90 | 1 | 1 |
Hygeia Dairy Co. v. Gonzalezgreen1 sentence2024App. Div. 2010) (same); Hygeia Dairy Co. v. Gonzalez, 994 S.W.2d 220, 226 (Tex. Ct. App. 1999) (“[T]here must be some evidence in the record from which the jury can make a reasoned calculation about losses from failure to mitigate.”). | 1 | 1 |
Chandler v. Graffeogreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., Monahan, 271 Va. at 636-37 (holding that a mitigation instruction was not appropriate where the patient’s decision to go home, rather than to the emergency room, was consistent with the doctor’s advice); Chandler, 268 Va. at 681 (holding that 6 Some courts in other jurisdictions have held that a defendant asserting a failure-to- mitigate defense must show “both how [the plaintiff] could have taken action to mitigate his damages and the amount of damages that might have been avoided by his proper mitigation.” Henry v. Mitchell, 428 S.W.3d 454, 462 (Ark. 2013); Eskenazi v. Mackoul, 90 | 1 | 1 |
Molina v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2024“Our ‘sole responsibility’ in reviewing a challenge to jury instructions ‘is to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.’” Taylor v. Commonwealth, 77 Va. App. 149 , 166 (2023) (quoting Molina v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 666, 671 (2006)). “[A] litigant is entitled to jury instructions supporting his or her theory of the case if sufficient evidence is introduced to support that theory,” and the evidence is sufficient if it “amount[s] to more than a scintilla.” Rodrigue, 79 Va. at 653 (second alteration in original) (quotin | 1 | 1 |
Hancock-Underwood v. Knightgreen1 sentence2024“Our ‘sole responsibility’ in reviewing a challenge to jury instructions ‘is to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.’” Taylor v. Commonwealth, 77 Va. App. 149 , 166 (2023) (quoting Molina v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 666, 671 (2006)). “[A] litigant is entitled to jury instructions supporting his or her theory of the case if sufficient evidence is introduced to support that theory,” and the evidence is sufficient if it “amount[s] to more than a scintilla.” Rodrigue, 79 Va. at 653 (second alteration in original) (quotin | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sears v. Upton
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 3263 & n.6 (“[T]he fact that some of such evidence may have been ‘hearsay’ does not necessarily undermine its value—or its admissibility—for penalty phase purposes.” Rather, “reliable hearsay evidence that is relevant to a capital defendant's mitigation defense should not be excluded Court considered in Chambers, 410 U.S. at 301-02 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2013Id. at 3263 & n.6 (“[T]he fact that some of such evidence may have been ‘hearsay’ does not necessarily undermine its value—or its admissibility—for penalty phase purposes.” Rather, “reliable hearsay evidence that is relevant to a capital defendant's mitigation defense should not be excluded Court considered in Chambers, 410 U.S. at 301-02 . 2013Although the Court ruled that exclusion of the testimony at issue in Chambers was improper because the evidence “bore persuasive assurances of trustworthiness,” it nevertheless observed that “the accused . . . must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.” Id. at 302 . 57 by rote application of a state hearsay rule.” (emphasis added)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.