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
I was reading through CA4’s recent opinion in Le Doux v. Western Express, Inc., ___ F.4th ___ (4th Cir. 2025), when I came across this footnote:
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
Senator Surovell has introduced SB999, which would change the CAV’s standards for granting oral argument to track federal practice. Specifically, it would make these changes to Code Section 17.1-403:
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
SCOVA handed down a fun published order recently in a local-government case, Rebh v. County Board of Arlington County. I know, right? But bear with me.
Rebh and a bunch of landowners challenged a land-use plan adopted by the County Board of Arlington County. (That is a very silly name, County County Board County.)
If you’ve practiced law for more than five minutes, you’ve received a responsive pleading or set of discovery responses telling you that x or y document “speaks for itself.” This claim usually answers a question or allegation about that document, intended in good faith to clarify a party’s position. For example, a complaint might allege
I’m always amazed at how people find new ways to lose appeals. Longtime friend of De Novo Monica Monday showed me a new one earlier this year: In two interlocutory appeals she was resisting, the petitioner missed the 15-day deadline for filing a petition for appeal. Because the Court of Appeals lacked authority to extend
On Tuesday, the CAV handed down its opinion in Pegasystems Inc. v. Appian Corporation, reversing the largest jury verdict in Virginia history. Pegasystems is a trade-secrets case. The jury tagged Pegas with a verdict of more than $2 billion. (Fun fact: This case was tried in Fairfax at the same time as the Johnny