In Mary Washington Healthcare v. Costello, the CAV holds that a trial court certifying an issue for interlocutory appeal does not have to explicitly make the four-part finding laid out in Code § 8.01-675.5.
Code § 8.01-675.5, you will recall, requires that a would-be appellant ask the court to certify in writing that an
The Court of Appeals handed down its ruling in the latest episode in the ongoing Galiotos saga earlier this week. I can’t really improve on the summary that the panel provides in its introduction:
These five appeals arise from a longstanding dispute among three brothers—Stavros (“Steve”), Paul, and Tasos Galiotos—over the division of business assets
I’ve been experimenting with using ChatGPT to prep for oral argument. I always do the thinking myself first, putting together my silly lists, outlines, and tough questions. But then I’ve been using AI to backstop or refine my work. It’s pretty good!
Here’s the basic process: First, I tell the client what I’m planning to
Obviously, the answer is going to vary by case.But as a default, I’ve settled on four minutes. Here’s why:
Every appellate CLE stresses the importance of reviewing the record as soon as possible, particularly if you are the appellant. This is especially important in state court because (1) you run up against deadlines quickly once the record lands in CAV, and (2) PACER works, but OCRA . . . kinda works sometimes?
And at
I was reading through CA4’s recent opinion in Le Doux v. Western Express, Inc., ___ F.4th ___ (4th Cir. 2025), when I came across this footnote:
Western Express and Worthy contend that we review the decision for plain error because Le Doux never briefed or argued in the district court whether Virginia law permits a
Sometimes I worry that AI is going to replace lawyers. And then the universe hands me an opinion like Llewellyn v. Fechtel, showing that nothing that able to pass the Turing test could ever do our jobs.
Llewellyn is a trusts-and-estates case; basically, Fechtel claimed the Llewellyn breached her fiduciary duties as trustee. The
Senator Surovell has introduced SB999, which would change the CAV’s standards for granting oral argument to track federal practice. Specifically, it would make these changes to Code Section 17.1-403:
The Supreme Court shall prescribe and publish the initial rules governing practice, procedure, and internal processes for the Court of Appeals designed to achieve the just,
You hate to see it: In Wolfe v. Wolfe, the ex husband filed a pro se motion to modify child support. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. In its final order, it said: “Should either of the parties wish to appeal they must at the moving party’s cost
Adam Feldman takes a look at “The Changing Face of Supreme Court Oral Arguments” at his Legalytics Substack. The whole article is interesting and worth reading. Here are his takeaways:
· Oral arguments are taking longer and there is no evidence that this will change soon.
· Attorneys are speaking more on the balance (than