Fadness v. Fadness

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when a party’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:20 is “significant, they have waived their right to have these issues reviewed by this Court”
• holding that when a party’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:20 is “significant, they have waived their right to have these issues reviewed by this Court”
• holding that when a party’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:20 is “significant, they have waived their right to have these issues reviewed by this Court”
• noting that the party seeking spousal support bears the burden of producing evidence to support the award
• holding wife’s request for a “periodic or lump sum monetary award” clearly placed husband on notice and was sufficient to support an award of spousal support
• “[R]equesting this Court to simply substitute our judgment of the evidence for that of the trial court is an inappropriate and singularly ineffective appellate argument.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).