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 1 courts 2012–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
CERES MARINE TERMINALS v. Armstronggreen2 sentences2025“A significant omission in this regard will result in waiver of the argument on appeal.” Ceres Marine Terminals v. Armstrong, 59 Va. App. 694, 708 (2012). - 12 - The principles guiding our application of this rule overlap with the reasons justifying it. 2025“A significant omission in this regard will result in waiver of the argument on appeal.” Ceres Marine Terminals v. Armstrong, 59 Va. App. 694, 708 (2012). | 4 | 5 |
Timothy Kenneth Bartley v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen2 sentences2025When an appellant has failed to “clearly define[]” the issues and “cite[] pertinent authority,” “addressing the case on the merits would require this court to be an advocate for, as well as the judge of the correctness of, [appellant’s] position on the issues [she] raises.” Bartley, 67 Va. App. at 744 (third alteration in original) (quoting Jones, 51 Va. App. at 734-35 ). 2024Under Rule 5A:20(e), an opening brief must contain “[t]he standard of review and the argument (including principles of law and authorities) relating to each assignment of error.” “A significant omission in this regard will result in waiver of the argument on appeal.” Ceres, 59 Va. App. at 708 ; see also Bartley, 67 Va. App. at 746 (“[I]t is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her.” (quoting Sneed v. Bd. of Prof. | 2 | 4 |
Hood v. Com.green1 sentence2025We have found the “failure to provide legal argument and authority as required by Rule 5A:20(e)” to be “significant” when the appellant’s brief “leaves us without a legal prism through which to view his alleged error.” Bartley, 67 Va. App. at 746 . 5 Indeed, Clowdis makes these unsupported statements within his argument that his claims are timely under the continuing violation doctrine, not in in support of his due process claim. - 10 - ‘intensely practical matters.’” Hood v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 526, 536 (2010) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Sneed v. Board of Professional Responsibilitygreen1 sentence2024Resp. of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010))). | 1 | 1 |
Atkins v. Com.green1 sentence2012Atkins v. Commonwealth, 57 Va.App. 2, 20, 698 S.E.2d 249, 258 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
Atkins v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2012Atkins v. Commonwealth, 57 Va.App. 2, 20, 698 S.E.2d 249, 258 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2025When an appellant has failed to “clearly define[]” the issues and “cite[] pertinent authority,” “addressing the case on the merits would require this court to be an advocate for, as well as the judge of the correctness of, [appellant’s] position on the issues [she] raises.” Bartley, 67 Va. App. at 744 (third alteration in original) (quoting Jones, 51 Va. App. at 734-35 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.