Commonwealth v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
Supreme Court of Virginia
1Dissent
Senior Justice Poff,
with whom Chief Justice Carrico and Justice Whiting join, dissenting.
Because the majority has construed the holding in Commonwealth v. Spotslyvania, 225 Va. 492, 303 S.E.2d 887 (1983), too narrowly, I must dissent.
The trial court, relying upon our decision in School Bd. of the City of Norfolk v. U.S. Gypsum, 234 Va. 32, 360 S.E.2d 325 (1987), implicitly ruled that U.S. Gypsum required it to reject the Commonwealth’s argument that the sovereign is exempt from the operation of Code § 8.01-250. As the majority acknowledges, however, “[tjhat question was not raised in U.S.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United States v. SummerlinSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- United States v. HoarU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1821
- School Board v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1987
- Buntin v. City of DanvilleSupreme Court of Virginia · 1896
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.