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 1924–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Isaac v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2024“This same-evidence principle has . . . stood in roughly the same form for well over a century,” and it “applies to criminal and civil cases.” Isaac v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 255, 260 (2011).22 Though explained in different ways, the practical effect of the principle remains clear: “Some courts so hold because the error is harmless, and others because the subsequent introduction of the same evidence is a waiver of the objection. 2017Although “explained in different ways, the practical effect of the principle ... is the same.” Isaac, 58 Va.App. at 260-61 , 708 S.E.2d at 437 -38 (quoting Taliaferro, 95 Va. at 523 , 28 S.E. at 879 ). | 1 | 2 |
Zektaw v. Com.green2 sentences2011Though explained in different ways, the practical effect of the principle remains clear: “Some courts so hold because the error is harmless, and others because the subsequent introduction of the same evidence is a waiver of the objection. *261 Whether it be placed upon one ground or the other, the result is the same.” Taliaferro, 95 Va. at 523 , 28 S.E. at 879 . 3 An exception to the same-evidence principle exists for evidence elicited “during cross-examination of a witness or in rebuttal testimony.” Zektaw v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 127, 134 , 677 S.E.2d 49, 52-53 (2009) (quoting Drinkard-Nucko 2011Though explained in different ways, the practical effect of the principle remains clear: “Some courts so hold because the error is harmless, and others because the subsequent introduction of the same evidence is a waiver of the objection. *261 Whether it be placed upon one ground or the other, the result is the same.” Taliaferro, 95 Va. at 523 , 28 S.E. at 879 . 3 An exception to the same-evidence principle exists for evidence elicited “during cross-examination of a witness or in rebuttal testimony.” Zektaw v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 127, 134 , 677 S.E.2d 49, 52-53 (2009) (quoting Drinkard-Nucko | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
New York Life Ins. v. Taliaferro
green
2 sentences2019Although “explained in different ways, the practical effect of the principle . . . ‘is the same.’” Id. (quoting Taliaferro, 95 Va. at 523 ). 2019Although “explained in different ways, the practical effect of the principle . . . ‘is the same.’” Id. (quoting Taliaferro, 95 Va. at 523 ). | 3 | 2011–2019 |
Combs v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
green
1 sentence2019Whether it be placed upon one ground or the other, the result is the same.” Id. at 260-61 (quoting New York Life Ins. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Drinkard-Nuckols v. Andrews
green
2 sentences2011Though explained in different ways, the practical effect of the principle remains clear: “Some courts so hold because the error is harmless, and others because the subsequent introduction of the same evidence is a waiver of the objection. *261 Whether it be placed upon one ground or the other, the result is the same.” Taliaferro, 95 Va. at 523 , 28 S.E. at 879 . 3 An exception to the same-evidence principle exists for evidence elicited “during cross-examination of a witness or in rebuttal testimony.” Zektaw v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 127, 134 , 677 S.E.2d 49, 52-53 (2009) (quoting Drinkard-Nucko 2011Though explained in different ways, the practical effect of the principle remains clear: “Some courts so hold because the error is harmless, and others because the subsequent introduction of the same evidence is a waiver of the objection. *261 Whether it be placed upon one ground or the other, the result is the same.” Taliaferro, 95 Va. at 523 , 28 S.E. at 879 . 3 An exception to the same-evidence principle exists for evidence elicited “during cross-examination of a witness or in rebuttal testimony.” Zektaw v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 127, 134 , 677 S.E.2d 49, 52-53 (2009) (quoting Drinkard-Nucko | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Wallace v. Wallace
neutral
1 sentence1924Eq., 50 Atl. 792 (Wallace v. Wallace, supra), he says: ‘It has been my rule, and I believe that of the other members of the court, not to decree for divorce for desertion based upon a service out of the jurisdiction and a domicile not matrimonial, unless such domicile has been acquired under circumstances showing sufficient and controlling reasons for its acquisition, other than the desire to procure a divorce, and certainly never when the avowed object was to obtain that relief.’ “The practical effect of this doctrine is to pre- ■ vent a citizen who removes into this State from another, even | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.