Barnette v. Dickens
Supreme Court of Virginia
1Opinion of the CourtBuchanan, J.
The appellee, defendant below, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the appellant, plaintiff below, failed to designate sufficient parts of the record to be printed as required by Rule 5:1, § 6 of Rules of Court.
Subsection (a) of § 6 provides that counsel for appellant shall file “a designation of the parts of the record that he wishes printed,” and that counsel for appellee shall file “a designation of the additional parts of the record that he wishes printed.” Appellee did not file such designation, but printed in an appendix to his brief the evidence which he says…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Scott v. SimmsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1949
- Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. WhitehurstSupreme Court of Virginia · 1919
- Hepler v. HeplerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1954
- Jenkins v. WomackSupreme Court of Virginia · 1959
- Gregory v. Lehigh Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1932
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Maroulis v. ElliottSupreme Court of Virginia · 1966
- Neeley v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1975
- Tarmac Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Smiley Block Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1995
- Page v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Virginia · 1984
- Barkley v. WallaceSupreme Court of Virginia · 2004
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.