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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 57 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Justin Godfrey Fahringer v. Commonwealth of Virginia.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Justin Godfrey Fahringer v. Commonwealth of Virginia Anchor | green | “a reviewing court's responsibility in reviewing jury instructions is 'to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.” | 28 |
| 2 | Gonzales v. Commonwealth | green | “we review a trial court's decisions in giving and denying requested jury instructions for abuse of discretion.” | 22 |
| 3 | Dorman v. State Industries, Inc. | green | “to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.” | 7 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.