Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-680 (2026)

When judgment of trial court not to be set aside unless plainly wrong, etc

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When a case, civil or criminal, is tried by a jury and a party objects to the judgment or action of the court in granting or refusing to grant a new trial on a motion to set aside the verdict of a jury on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence, or when a case is decided by a court without the intervention of a jury and a party objects to the decision on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence, the judgment of the trial court shall not be set aside unless it appears from the evidence that such judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.

Code 1950, § 8-491; 1977, c. 617.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,092 cases (263 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Gerald, T. v. Commonwealth, 813 S.E.2d 722 (Va. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gerald, T. v. Commonwealth, 813 S.E.2d 722 (Va. 2018). · cites it 4× “2d 408 , 413 (2017) (quoting Code § 8.01-680 ). In such cases, the Court does not ask itself whether it believes the evidence establishes the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether any rational trier of fact could have so found.”

Commonwealth v. Moseley, 799 S.E.2d 683 (Va. 2017). · cites it 4× “” Code § 8.01-680; Viney v. Commonwealth, 269 Va.”

Hamilton v. Com., 688 S.E.2d 168 (Va. 2010). · cites it 8× “Code § 8.01-680; Tarpley v. Commonwealth, 261 Va.”

Andy Chavez v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 817 S.E.2d 330 (Va. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “(quoting Code § 8.01-680). Ultimately, “[t]he . . .”

Pijor v. Commonwealth, 808 S.E.2d 408 (Va. 2017). · cites it 2× “" Code § 8.01-680. We have repeatedly held that "[t]hese principles apply 'with equal force' to bench trials no differently than to jury trials.”

Alfred Banks, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 795 S.E.2d 908 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” Code § 8.01-680. “If there is evidence to support the conviction[ ], the reviewing court is not permitted to substitute its own judgment, even if its opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by the finder of fact at the trial.”

Com. v. McNeal, 710 S.E.2d 733 (Va. 2011). · cites it 4× “2d 137, 139-40 (2008) (citing Code § 8.01-680 and Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 255 Va.”

Ervin v. Commonwealth, 704 S.E.2d 135 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “2d 26, 28 (2005) (quoting Code § 8.01-680); see also Burks v. United States, 437 U.”

Morris v. Com., 636 S.E.2d 436 (Va. 2006). · cites it 8× “; Code § 8.01-680. Thus, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder even if our opinion were to differ.”

Wiggins v. Commonwealth, 622 S.E.2d 774 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “Virginia has historically treated the incidental detention issue as one of fact for the jury, subject to the deferential review of Code § 8.01-680. Analyzing the issue under the heading "Sufficiency of the Evidence," the Virginia Supreme Court in Powell v.”

Seaton v. Commonwealth, 595 S.E.2d 9 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “” Given that we review conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we assume as true Callahan’s testimony on this point.”

Com. v. Allen, 609 S.E.2d 4 (Va. 2005). · cites it 6× “In essence, the Commonwealth desires this Court to reweigh the testimony of the two experts and to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. However, as in all civil cases, the judgment of a trial court, sitting without a jury, is entitled to the same weight as a jury…”

Show all 1,092 citing cases →

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.