Legal Opinion
Runion v. Helvestine
Supreme Court of Virginia
Decided June 5, 1998No. Record 971364PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Carrico
In an amended bill of complaint, the plaintiffs, Dorothy Marie Runion and her husband, David L. Runion, sought to enjoin the alienation of Lots A and B, as shown on a certain plat, in which the plaintiffs claimed an interest under an oral contract whereby Dorothy W. Helvestine agreed to make a will devising the plaintiffs Lot A and an option to purchase Lot B. The chancellor dismissed the amended bill on demurrer, and we awarded the plaintiffs this appeal. Finding that the chancellor erred, we will reverse.
In addition to Dorothy Helvestine, the amended bill named as defendants her…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Kidd v. EarlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- Rosillo v. WintersSupreme Court of Virginia · 1988
- W. S. Carnes, Inc. v. Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1996
- Lacey v. CardwellSupreme Court of Virginia · 1975
- A. B. C. Auto Parts, Inc. v. MoranMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Moorman v. Blackstock, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2008
- Nattah v. BushDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- F.E. v. G.F.M.Court of Appeals of Virginia · 2001
- Joaquin Shadow Rams, Sr., a/k/a, etc. v. Commonwealth of VirginiaCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2019
- Mattaponi Indian Tribe v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2000
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.