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 3 courts 1936–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
John Beverly Chapman, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2022Levenson v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 255, 259, 261 (2017); Chapman v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 131, 140-41 (2017), aff’d, 296 Va. 386 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
Barry Justin Levenson v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2022Levenson v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 255, 259, 261 (2017); Chapman v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 131, 140-41 (2017), aff’d, 296 Va. 386 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Com.green1 sentence2022Robinson v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 45, 53 (2007) (interpreting the phrase “involved in an accident” to invoke a proximate cause analysis). | 1 | 1 |
Joquan Wayne Hawkins v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2022See Hawkins v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 650, 654-56 (2015) (applying a proximate cause analysis in an aggravated malicious wounding case that involved medical care after the crime which partially caused the impairment). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Commonwealth
neutral
1 sentence2022Levenson v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 255, 259, 261 (2017); Chapman v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 131, 140-41 (2017), aff’d, 296 Va. 386 (2018). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride
green
2 sentences2019In CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride , 564 U.S. 685 , 131 S.Ct. 2630 , 180 L.Ed.2d 637 (2011), the majority and dissenting Justices disagreed about the scope of the proximate cause standard under FELA. 2019In CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride , 564 U.S. 685 , 131 S.Ct. 2630 , 180 L.Ed.2d 637 (2011), the majority and dissenting Justices disagreed about the scope of the proximate cause standard under FELA. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Moreno v. Baskerville
green
2 sentences1997The situation here is entirely unlike a case in which a shot fired across a state line ‘immediately’ results in harm, thus enabling the forum state to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over the assailant.” Id. at 19-20 , 452 S.E.2d at 655 . 1997The situation here is entirely unlike a case in which a shot fired across a state line ‘immediately’ results in harm, thus enabling the forum state to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over the assailant.” Id. at 19-20 , 452 S.E.2d at 655 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Locke v. Johns-Manville Corp.
green
2 sentences1996Locke v. Johns-Manville Corp., 221 Va. 951 , 275 S.E.2d 900 (1981). 1996Locke v. Johns-Manville Corp., 221 Va. 951 , 275 S.E.2d 900 (1981). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Sheriff, Clark County v. Hicks
green
2 sentences1995As one Court expressly said in rejecting California’s unique provocative act murder approach, “[a] rose, the felon[y] murder rule, is still a rose by any other name, vicarious liability.” Sheriff, Clark County v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766 , 768 n. 7 (1973). 1995As one Court expressly said in rejecting California’s unique provocative act murder approach, “[a] rose, the felon[y] murder rule, is still a rose by any other name, vicarious liability.” Sheriff, Clark County v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766 , 768 n. 7 (1973). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Vellines
neutral
2 sentences1936It is only when these superadded facts or circumstances make the conduct of the defendant the proximate cause that the rule applies.” Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Vellines, 162 Va. 671 , 175 S. E. 35, 40 . 1936It is only when these superadded facts or circumstances make the conduct of the defendant the proximate cause that the rule applies.” Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Vellines, 162 Va. 671 , 175 S. E. 35, 40 . | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.