A. The Court of Appeals shall sit at such locations within the Commonwealth as the chief judge, upon consultation with the other judges of the court, shall designate so as to provide, insofar as feasible, convenient access to the various geographic areas of the Commonwealth. The chief judge shall schedule sessions of the court as required to discharge expeditiously the business of the court.
B. The Court of Appeals shall sit in panels of at least three judges each. The presence of all judges in the panel shall be necessary to constitute a quorum. The chief judge shall assign the members to panels and, insofar as practicable, rotate the membership of the panels. The chief judge shall preside over any panel of which he is a member and shall designate the presiding judges of the other panels.
C. Each panel shall hear and determine, independently of the others, the petitions for appeal pursuant to § 17.1-406 or 19.2-398 and appeals in criminal and civil cases assigned to that panel.
D. The Court of Appeals shall sit en banc (i) when there is a dissent in the panel to which the case was originally assigned and an aggrieved party requests an en banc hearing and at least six judges of the court vote in favor of such a hearing or (ii) when any judge of any panel shall certify that in his opinion a decision of such panel of the court is in conflict with a prior decision of the court or of any panel thereof and five other judges of the court concur in that view. The court may sit en banc upon its own motion at any time or upon the petition of any party, in any case in which a majority of the court determines it is appropriate to do so. The court sitting en banc shall consider and decide the case and may overrule any previous decision by any panel or of the full court.
E. The court may sit en banc with no fewer than 13 judges. In all cases decided by the court en banc, the concurrence of at least a majority of the judges sitting shall be required to reverse a judgment, in whole or in part.
1983, c. 413, § 17-116.02; 1984, c. 701; 1988, cc. 71, 478; 1998, c. 872; 2000, c. 8; 2001, c. 555; 2008, cc. 54, 156; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, c. 489.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
40
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case:
Startin v. Commonwealth, 690 S.E.2d 310 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
Startin v. Commonwealth, 690 S.E.2d 310 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 16× “1 to prevent actual physical injury or death and to discourage criminal conduct that produces fear of physical harm, we exercise our authority under Code § 17.1-402(D) and overrule the decision in Sprouse, 19 Va.”
Turner v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 251 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 22× “" Code § 17.1-402(C) (emphasis added). Thus, it must be noted that the divided panel that granted Turner's petition for a writ of actual innocence was a separate panel from the one that referred the matter to the circuit court for factual findings.”
Edwards v. Commonwealth, 589 S.E.2d 444 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “See Code § 17.1-402(D) ("The court [of appeals] sitting en banc shall consider and decide the case and may overrule any previous decision by any panel or of the full court.”
Steve Whitt v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 739 S.E.2d 254 (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 10× “The Court subsequently determined on its own motion to rehear the appeal en banc, pursuant to Code § 17.1-402(D). ANALYSIS I. THIS COURT MAY PERMIT THE AMENDMENT TO AN ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES.”
Hardesty v. Hardesty, 581 S.E.2d 213 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “See Code § 17.1-402(D) ("The Court sitting en banc shall consider and decide the case and may overrule any previous decision by any panel or of the full Court.”
Newman v. Newman, 593 S.E.2d 533 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Because the order was consistent with Code § 20-109(A), the order does not reference Code § 20-109(C), and the record does not reflect that the parties satisfied the requirement of Code § 20-109(C) to move "the court [to] modify its decree to conform to [a filed] stipulation or…”
Moore v. Com., 668 S.E.2d 150 (Va. 2008).
· cites it 4× “This language indicates a clear legislative preference for the prompt and final disposition of appellate cases on the merits, when that can be done without interfering with the orderly administration of justice.”
Wright v. Commonwealth, 667 S.E.2d 787 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Code § 17.1-402(d). But it has no power to overturn Williams, Foster or Moore .”
Donte Lavell Brooks v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 739 S.E.2d 245 (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “We subsequently determined on our own motion to rehear the appeal en banc, pursuant to Code § 17.1-402(D). 2 On rehearing en banc, we dismiss Brooks’s appeal.”
Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 562 S.E.2d 139 (Va. 2002).
· cites it 2× “In so holding, the majority, pursuant to Code § 17.1-402(0), stated that it was expressly overruling Gregory and Williams , and, to the extent that Jones could be read to establish a requirement of proof that the firearm was operable or could readily be made so, Jones also was…”
Foltz v. Commonwealth, 706 S.E.2d 914 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to Code § 17.1-402(D)(ii), we ordered rehearing en banc and stayed the mandate of the panel decision.”
Rushing v. Commonwealth, 712 S.E.2d 41 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 8× “" Code § 17.1-402(C). This language expresses the same legislative intent as does the language in Code § 17.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-402(0) — 1 case
Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 562 S.E.2d 139 (Va. 2002).
“In so holding, the majority, pursuant to Code § 17.1-402(0), stated that it was expressly overruling Gregory and Williams , and, to the extent that Jones could be read to establish a requirement of proof that the firearm was operable or could readily be made so, Jones also was…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-402(C) — 4 cases
Turner v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 251 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
“" Code § 17.1-402(C) (emphasis added). Thus, it must be noted that the divided panel that granted Turner's petition for a writ of actual innocence was a separate panel from the one that referred the matter to the circuit court for factual findings.”
Rushing v. Commonwealth, 712 S.E.2d 41 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“" Code § 17.1-402(C). This language expresses the same legislative intent as does the language in Code § 17.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-402(D) — 28 cases
Startin v. Commonwealth, 690 S.E.2d 310 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
“1 to prevent actual physical injury or death and to discourage criminal conduct that produces fear of physical harm, we exercise our authority under Code § 17.1-402(D) and overrule the decision in Sprouse, 19 Va.”
Turner v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 251 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
“" Code § 17.1-402(C) (emphasis added). Thus, it must be noted that the divided panel that granted Turner's petition for a writ of actual innocence was a separate panel from the one that referred the matter to the circuit court for factual findings.”
Edwards v. Commonwealth, 589 S.E.2d 444 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“See Code § 17.1-402(D) ("The court [of appeals] sitting en banc shall consider and decide the case and may overrule any previous decision by any panel or of the full court.”
Steve Whitt v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 739 S.E.2d 254 (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
“The Court subsequently determined on its own motion to rehear the appeal en banc, pursuant to Code § 17.1-402(D). ANALYSIS I. THIS COURT MAY PERMIT THE AMENDMENT TO AN ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES.”
Hardesty v. Hardesty, 581 S.E.2d 213 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“See Code § 17.1-402(D) ("The Court sitting en banc shall consider and decide the case and may overrule any previous decision by any panel or of the full Court.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-402(D)(ii) — 4 cases
Foltz v. Commonwealth, 706 S.E.2d 914 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“Pursuant to Code § 17.1-402(D)(ii), we ordered rehearing en banc and stayed the mandate of the panel decision.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-402(E) — 3 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-402(d) — 1 case
Wright v. Commonwealth, 667 S.E.2d 787 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“Code § 17.1-402(d). But it has no power to overturn Williams, Foster or Moore .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.