Legal Opinion

Testerman v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided October 5, 2010No. 2823094PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HALEY, Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The construction fraud statute, Code § 18.2-200.1, requires a person to receive an advance “upon a promise to perform construction.” Appealing his convictions under this statute, David Lee Testerman argues the evidence failed to prove he promised to perform construction since the advances he received paid only for supplies, not labor. He maintains he only promised to obtain supplies. We hold a person receiving an advance for supplies obtains an advance under this statute where the advance comes as a result of, or because of, a promise to perform…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Bolden v. Com.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2008
  3. Maxwell v. Com.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2008
  4. Armstrong v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 2002
  5. Ansell v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1979

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Towler v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2011
  2. Andrew Lamont Spratley v. Commonwealth of VirginiaCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2018

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API