46 Va. App. 309 - Jones v. West’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. “Accordingly, "the burden is upon the appealing party to demonstrate error." Carter v. Gordon, 28 Va.App. 133, 141 , 502 S.E.2d 697, 700-01 (1998); Code § 2.2-4027. The reviewing court will view "the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the [agency's] action," Atkinson v. Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control Comm'n, 1 Va.App. 172, 176 , 336 S.E.2d 527, 530 (1985), and "take due account of the presumption of official regularity, the experience and specialized competence of the agency, and the purposes of the basic law under which the agency has acted," Code § 2.2-4027. Moreover, the review of an agency's factual findings "is limited to determining whether substantial evidence in the agency record supports its decision," Avante at Lynchburg, Inc. v. Teefey, 28 Va.App. 156, 160 , 502 S.E.2d 708, 710 (1998), and "great deference is to be accorded the agency decision," Holtzman Oil v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 532, 539 , 529 S.E.2d 333, 337 (2000).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commissioner, Virginia Department of Social Services v. Fulton · 55 Va. App. 69 - COMM. DEPT. OF SOC. SER. v. Fulton

2. “`No reversible error will be found . . . unless there is a clear showing of prejudice arising from the admission of [improper] evidence, or unless it is plain that the agency's conclusions were determined by the improper evidence, and that a contrary result would have been reached in its absence.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 50 Va. App. 468 - LOUDOUN HOSP. CENTER v. Stroube

3. “The harm done in this case to the fact-finding process by the local department’s failure to tape record the interview with the alleged child victim cannot be corrected by a rehearing on remand. The clock cannot be turned back. Obviously, the same interview with S J. cannot now be tape recorded.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fentress v. Virginia Department of Social Services