A. The Court of Appeals shall state in writing the reasons for its ruling in a case. Subject to rules promulgated under § 17.1-403 the Court in its discretion may render its decision by order or memorandum opinion. All orders and opinions of the Court of Appeals shall be preserved with the record of the case. Opinions designated by the Court of Appeals as having precedential value or as otherwise having significance for the law or legal system shall be expeditiously reported in separate Court of Appeals Reports in the same manner as the decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court. The clerk of the Court of Appeals shall retain in the clerk's office a list and brief summary of the case for all unpublished decisions and opinions of the Court of Appeals. The list of cases and summary shall be made available to any person upon request.
B. The Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court shall contract for the printing of the reports of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals and for the advance sheets of each court. He shall select a printer for the reports and prescribe such contract terms as will ensure issuance of the reports as soon as practicable after a sufficient number of opinions are filed. He shall make such contracts after consultation with the Department of General Services and shall distribute these reports in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. He shall also provide for the electronic publication on the Internet of the opinions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals subject to conditions and restrictions established by each court regarding the electronic publication of its opinions.
1983, c. 413, § 17-116.010; 1984, cc. 635, 701; 1997, c. 316; 1998, c. 872; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, c. 489.
Notes of Decisions
Angela Maye Holt v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 783 S.E.2d 546 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “So viewed, the evidence established that Holt and Anthony Banks (“Banks”), the victim in the present case, began dating in 2012 when Banks was seventeen years old and Holt was twenty-nine years old.”
Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Rose, 509 S.E.2d 525 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “203, 205 (1985) ("The Commission has regularly held that, in the absence of other mitigating factors, suspension of benefits for refusal of medical or physical rehabilitation training services will continue until a claimant actually meets with a physician or counselor and cures…”
Sheets v. Castle, 559 S.E.2d 616 (Va. 2002).
· cites it 2× “We note that the Attorney General has employed a similar argument concerning unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals of Virginia. The Attorney General has argued that unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals which would otherwise have no precedential value (see Code §…”
Johnathan Reeves Robinson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 828 S.E.2d 269 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “apologized, and as she entered the residence, appellant stood in front of her and “grabbed [her] breasts right behind * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.”
Victoria Elizabeth Dufresne v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 791 S.E.2d 335 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “After the Commonwealth rested, appellant moved to strike the evidence, maintaining the evidence failed to prove the taking of the victim’s * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.”
Commonwealth v. Borek, 68 Va. Cir. 323 (Charlottesville Cir. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 3× “The Court is aware that, pursuant to Va. Code § 17.1-413, this unpublished opinion is of minimal precedential value.”
Lloyd v. Niceta, 301 A.3d 94 (Md. 2023).
“Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-413 (stating that only reported decisions “hav[e] precedential value or .”
Friedberg v. Hague Park Apts., 61 Va. Cir. 589 (2001).
· cites it 2× “Code of Virginia § 17.1-413 states “Opinions designated by the Court of Appeals as having precedential value or as otherwise having significance for the law or legal system shall be expeditiously reported in separate Court of Appeals Reports in the same manner as the decisions…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-413(A) — 1782 cases
Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Rose, 509 S.E.2d 525 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
“203, 205 (1985) ("The Commission has regularly held that, in the absence of other mitigating factors, suspension of benefits for refusal of medical or physical rehabilitation training services will continue until a claimant actually meets with a physician or counselor and cures…”
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.