32 Va. App. 601 - Michaels v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 state decisions

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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.” Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 299, 308 , 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998) (citing Jacques v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 591, 593 , 405 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1991)); see also Rule 5A:18. However, Rule 5A:18 provides for consideration of a ruling by the trial court that was not objected to at trial “to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.” Rule 5A:18. “ ‘The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly’ ” when an error at trial is “ ‘clear, substantial and material.’ ” Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 215, 220-21 , 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 126, 132, 380 S.E.2d 8, 10-11 (1989)). “In order to avail oneself of the exception, a defendant must affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might have occurred.” Id. at 221 , 487 S.E.2d at 272 (citing Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va.App. 433, 436 , 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987)). In order to show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, an appellant must demonstrate more than that the Commonwealth failed to prove an element of the offense----[T]he appellant must demonstrate that he or she was convicted for conduct that was not a criminal offense or the record must affirmatively prove that an element of the offense did not occur.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 42 Va. App. 424 - Copeland v. Commonwealth · 43 Va. App. 126 - Lewis v. Commonwealth

2. “"A person is in `contempt' of a court order only if it is shown that he or she has violated its express terms. See Winn v. Winn, 218 Va. 8, 10 , 235 S.E.2d 307, 309 (1977). `"The process for contempt lies for disobedience of what is decreed, not for what may be decreed.'" Id. (quoting Taliaferro v. Horde's Adm'r, 22 Va. (1 Rand.) 242 , 247 (1822)). `[B]efore a person may be held in contempt for violating a court order, the order must be in definite terms as to the duties thereby imposed upon him and the command must be expressed rather than implied.' Id. (citation omitted)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 46 Va. App. 161 - Epps v. Commonwealth

3. “A person is in “contempt” of a court order only if it is shown that he or she has violated its express terms. “ ‘The process for contempt lies for disobedience of what is decreed, not for what may be decreed.’ ” “[B]efore a person may be held in contempt for violating a court order, the order must be in definite terms as to the duties thereby imposed upon him and the command must be expressed rather than implied.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 47 Va. App. 687 - George M. Epps, Sheriff of City of Petersburg, Virginia v. Commonwealth