39 Va. App. 522 - Holsapple v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If any person obtain from another an advance of money, . . . with fraudulent intent, upon a promise to perform construction ... of any building or structure permanently annexed to real property . . . and fail or refuse to perform such promise, and also fail to substantially make good such advance, he shall be deemed guilty of the larceny of such money ... if he fails to return such advance within fifteen days of a request to do so sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to his last known address or to the address listed in the contract.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 42 Va. App. 119 - McCary v. Commonwealth · Holsapple v. Commonwealth

2. “Common sense would likewise dictate that a performance of construction which is so poor as to render a structure unsafe or uninhabitable could, under the appropriate circumstances, constitute the failure to perform the contractual promise at issue. Here, the evidence demonstrated that the truss work was done so poorly that the home was simply not safe to live in. Accordingly, while we do not hold that poor workmanship per se constitutes a failure to perform the contractual promise, on these facts we find no error in the trial court’s determination that the faulty workmanship in this case constituted a failure to perform within the meaning of the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Holsapple v. Commonwealth

3. ““It is apparent from reason and common sense that construction fraud can occur despite the fact that a builder or contractor begins to perform on the contract. . . The relevant question is whether a builder or contractor obtained an advance based upon future work promised with a fraudulent intent not to perform or to perform only partially, not whether the contractor had performed work for which he was paid.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Holsapple v. Commonwealth