Don't Miss
Home / Fulltext Opinions / Virginia Court of Appeals (page 173)

Virginia Court of Appeals

Feed Subscription

ROBB v. COMMONWEALTH

Evidence was sufficient for trial court to conclude that appellant had actual notice that he had been declared an habitual offender and could not lawfully drive

Read More »

ROSE v. COMMONWEALTH

No error in trial court's decision to allow the Commonwealth to adduce the evidence of a prior robbery committed by appellant

Read More »

YOPP v. HODGES

Court finds that appellant's failure to serve guardian ad litem is not fatal in this case as Hughes is disinguishable; Court finds on merits that trial court did not err in awarding visitation to maternal grandparents

Read More »

MAY v. COMMONWEALTH

Evidence was sufficient, as a matter of law, to establish that appellant intended to injure the victims and supported his convictions of assault & battery and assault & battery of a police officer

Read More »

BALDWIN v. COMMONWEALTH

Appellant's convictions affirmed as trial judge had authority to enter order staying and suspending imposition of sentences and had authority to grant relief sought if trial judge found evidence warranted relief

Read More »

LOPEZ v. LOPEZ

For the purposes of determining spousal support the trial court erred in considering wife's inheritance as income. Remand for reconsideration of spousal support award.

Read More »

COMMONWEALTH v. ERMIAS

The police officer had reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle; trial court?s decision reversed and case remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

WEST v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in convicting appellant of driving under the influence, involuntary manslaughter, and aggravated involuntary manslaughter.

Read More »

Johnson v. Johnson

The trail court determined that husband did not meet his burden of proof and accordingly denied his motion to abate spousal support.

Read More »

EDMONDS v. COMMONWEALTH

Because the trial court did not indicate that it was taking judicial notice of the fact that the warrant gave appellant notice of the hearing, it deprived her of the "opportunity to be heard either to dispute the 'fact' or to object to the court's action."

Read More »
Scroll To Top