Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Chatman v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided August 14, 2012No. Record Nos. 0858-11-2, 2708-10-1, 0885-11-3Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partElder, J.

Although I admire the efforts of the majority to discern and comply with the Supreme Court’s relevant holdings in this area, I believe it applies these holdings and the applicable rules more rigidly than necessary. In my view, the Supreme Court’s relevant decisions leave room for the conclusion that this Court obtains active jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal when the appellant timely files a petition that substantially complies with Rule 5A:12(c). Because I believe a more lenient interpretation of the Rules better serves public policy, I would conclude we obtain active jurisdiction over a…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Whren v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Michigan v. LongSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Pennsylvania v. MimmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1977

27 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