In Mary Washington Healthcare v. Costello, the CAV holds that a trial court certifying an issue for interlocutory appeal does not have to explicitly make the four-part finding laid out in Code § 8.01-675.5.
Code § 8.01-675.5, you will recall, requires that a would-be appellant ask the court to certify in writing that an
These five appeals arise from a longstanding dispute among three brothers—Stavros (“Steve”), Paul, and Tasos Galiotos—over the division of business assets
I’ve been experimenting with using ChatGPT to prep for oral argument. I always do the thinking myself first, putting together my silly lists, outlines, and tough questions. But then I’ve been using AI to backstop or refine my work. It’s pretty good!
Here’s the basic process: First, I tell the client what I’m planning to
Every appellate CLE stresses the importance of reviewing the record as soon as possible, particularly if you are the appellant. This is especially important in state court because (1) you run up against deadlines quickly once the record lands in CAV, and (2) PACER works, but OCRA . . . kinda works sometimes?
And at
Western Express and Worthy contend that we review the decision for plain error because Le Doux never briefed or argued in the district court whether Virginia law permits
Sometimes I worry that AI is going to replace lawyers. And then the universe hands me an opinion like Llewellyn v. Fechtel, showing that nothing that able to pass the Turing test could ever do our jobs.
Llewellyn is a trusts-and-estates case; basically, Fechtel claimed the Llewellyn breached her fiduciary duties as trustee. The
The Supreme Court shall prescribe and publish the initial rules governing practice, procedure, and internal processes for the Court of Appeals designed to achieve the just,
You hate to see it: In Wolfe v. Wolfe, the ex husband filed a pro se motion to modify child support. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. In its final order, it said: “Should either of the parties wish to appeal they must at the moving party’s cost
SCOVA just handed down Baez v. Commonwealth, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting police body-cam footage. While some of the analysis is context-specific–commercial litigators and PI attorneys maybe aren’t going to spend too much time worrying about the Confrontation Clause–the opinion does have a few points worth considering