Clark v. Com.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, under Virginia law, “[m]ere insulting and abusive words alone cannot constitute actionable assault’
• explaining that “because the elements of assault are not statutorily defined, this Court must apply the common law definition”
• noting that “[w]ords . . . are highly relevant in shedding light on intent . . .”
• explaining that “because the elements of assault are not statutorily defined, this Court must apply the common law definition”
• stating that a common- law definition of assault and battery applies to § 18.2-57.2
• defining the common law offense of assault as also including an “overt act intended to inflict bodily harm” when the assailant “has the present ability to inflict such harm” (quoting Carter v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 44, 47 (2005))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).