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 2010–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alliance to Save the Mattaponi v. Virginia Marine Resources Commissingreen2 sentences2013Alliance v. Va. Marine, 43 Va. App. 724, 727 , 601 S.E.2d 684, 685-86 (2004) (citations omitted). 2013Alliance v. Va. Marine, 43 Va. App. 724, 727 , 601 S.E.2d 684, 685-86 (2004) (citations omitted). | 4 | 4 |
Morris v. Morrisgreen1 sentence2019With respect to the timing requirement, it is well established that the claim regarding the alleged incident must be “bounded with rigid temporal precision.” Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589 (1989); see also Aistrop v. Blue Diamond Coal Co., 181 Va. 287, 293 (1943) (holding that an alleged incident 4 Although the record often references “punching drills,” the Commission expressly credited evidence that the injury occurred during “the punching drill.” It noted that “claimant consistently attributed his injury to this drill. | 1 | 1 |
Aistrop v. Blue Diamond Coal Co.green1 sentence2019With respect to the timing requirement, it is well established that the claim regarding the alleged incident must be “bounded with rigid temporal precision.” Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589 (1989); see also Aistrop v. Blue Diamond Coal Co., 181 Va. 287, 293 (1943) (holding that an alleged incident 4 Although the record often references “punching drills,” the Commission expressly credited evidence that the injury occurred during “the punching drill.” It noted that “claimant consistently attributed his injury to this drill. | 1 | 1 |
Foley v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2010See Foley v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 149, 161-62 , 379 S.E.2d 915, 922 (1989) (noting that the present sense impression exception’s “‘requirement of contemporaneousness, or near contemporaneousness, reduces the chance of premeditated prevarication or loss of memory’” (quoting Booth v. State, 508 A.2d 976, 980 (Md. 1986))); see also Wilder, 55 Va. App. at 588 , 687 S.E.2d at 546 (“Contrary to Wilder’s contention, from the facts in the record, the trial court could have properly concluded that the statements contained in the tape recording were made contemporaneously or near contemporaneously w 2010See Foley v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 149, 161-62 , 379 S.E.2d 915, 922 (1989) (noting that the present sense impression exception’s “‘requirement of contemporaneousness, or near contemporaneousness, reduces the chance of premeditated prevarication or loss of memory’” (quoting Booth v. State, 508 A.2d 976, 980 (Md. 1986))); see also Wilder, 55 Va. App. at 588 , 687 S.E.2d at 546 (“Contrary to Wilder’s contention, from the facts in the record, the trial court could have properly concluded that the statements contained in the tape recording were made contemporaneously or near contemporaneously w | 1 | 1 |
Booth v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Foley v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 149, 161-62 , 379 S.E.2d 915, 922 (1989) (noting that the present sense impression exception’s “‘requirement of contemporaneousness, or near contemporaneousness, reduces the chance of premeditated prevarication or loss of memory’” (quoting Booth v. State, 508 A.2d 976, 980 (Md. 1986))); see also Wilder, 55 Va. App. at 588 , 687 S.E.2d at 546 (“Contrary to Wilder’s contention, from the facts in the record, the trial court could have properly concluded that the statements contained in the tape recording were made contemporaneously or near contemporaneously w | 1 | 1 |
Wilder v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2010See Foley v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 149, 161-62 , 379 S.E.2d 915, 922 (1989) (noting that the present sense impression exception’s “‘requirement of contemporaneousness, or near contemporaneousness, reduces the chance of premeditated prevarication or loss of memory’” (quoting Booth v. State, 508 A.2d 976, 980 (Md. 1986))); see also Wilder, 55 Va. App. at 588 , 687 S.E.2d at 546 (“Contrary to Wilder’s contention, from the facts in the record, the trial court could have properly concluded that the statements contained in the tape recording were made contemporaneously or near contemporaneously w 2010See Foley v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 149, 161-62 , 379 S.E.2d 915, 922 (1989) (noting that the present sense impression exception’s “‘requirement of contemporaneousness, or near contemporaneousness, reduces the chance of premeditated prevarication or loss of memory’” (quoting Booth v. State, 508 A.2d 976, 980 (Md. 1986))); see also Wilder, 55 Va. App. at 588 , 687 S.E.2d at 546 (“Contrary to Wilder’s contention, from the facts in the record, the trial court could have properly concluded that the statements contained in the tape recording were made contemporaneously or near contemporaneously w | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.