12 Va. App. 1200 - Kaufman v. Kaufman’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably 48 Va. App. 466 - Robbins v. Robbins (2006), 16 Va. App. 159 - American Filtrona Co. v. Hanford (1993)
34 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Weidman v. Babcock · Smoot v. Smoot · 12 Va. App. 512 - Lee v. Lee · Steinman v. Clinchfield Coal Corp. · 10 Va. App. 1 - Blank v. Blank
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The [law of the case] doctrine, briefly stated, is this: Where there have been two appeals in the same case, between the same parties, and the facts are the same, nothing decided on the first appeal can be re-examined on a second appeal. Right or wrong, it is binding on both the trial court and the appellate court, and is not subject to re-examination by either. For the purpose of that case, though only for that case, the decision on the first appeal is law. It differs from res judicata in that the conclusiveness of the first judgment is not dependent upon its finality. The first judgment is generally, if not universally, not final. The reason of the rule is twofold. First, after the rehearing period has passed, the appellate court has no power to change its judgment and the mandate for retrial removes the case from its jurisdiction. Second, it is necessary to the orderly and efficient administration of justice. It would greatly increase the labor of appellate courts and the costs to litigants if questions once considered and determined could be reopened on any subsequent appeal. . . . The rule also applies where the question raised on the second appeal was necessarily involved in the first appeal, whether actually adjudicated or not.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“specifically acknowledged the existence of [the appellant's] objections”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Scialdone v. Com.“made known to the trial court his position”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Scialdone v. Com.
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.