Legal Opinion

Zelnick v. Adams

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided January 14, 2005No. Docket 040916PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

G. STEVEN AGEE, Justice.

In Zelnick v. Adams, 263 Va. 601 , 561 S.E.2d 711 (2002), ( Zelnick I ), we held that "a contract for legal services is within the `general classes of necessaries' that may defeat a plea of infancy." Id. at 611, 561 S.E.2d at 717 . We remanded the case for further proceedings "on the issue of the factual determination of necessity `under all the circumstances.'" Id. at 612, 561 S.E.2d at 718 . The trial court, on remand, determined the legal services at issue were not "`necessities' under all the circumstances of [the] case." For the reasons set forth below, we will…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Eure v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2002
  2. Caplan v. BogardSupreme Court of Virginia · 2002
  3. Temple v. City of PetersburgSupreme Court of Virginia · 1944
  4. Hurdle v. PrinzSupreme Court of Virginia · 1977
  5. Strother v. Lynchburg Trust & Savings BankSupreme Court of Virginia · 1931

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Jonathan Brenton Griffin v. Commonwealth of VirginiaCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2023
  2. Telegraph Square II, A Condominium Unit Owners v. 7205 Telegraph Square, LLCCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2023
  3. Telegraph Square II, A Condominium Unit Owners v. 7205 Telegraph Square, LLCCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2023
  4. Telegraph Square II, A Condominium Unit Owners v. 7205 Telegraph Square, LLCCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2023
  5. Timothy Holley v. Commonwealth of VirginiaCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2010

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

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

Powered by the Exa API