Gerrity v. Brady

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that there is “little or no evidence of [abatement ab initio] prior to the late nineteenth century.” (quoting Bevel v. Commonwealth, 717 S.E.2d 789, 792 (Va. 2011))
• noting that there is “little or no evidence of [abatement ab initio] prior to the late nineteenth century.” (quoting Bevel v. Commonwealth, 717 S.E.2d 789, 792 (Va. 2011))
• noting a plurality of state courts and the federal courts follow the abatement ab initio doctrine, although adherence is waning in state courts
• discussing “the potential impact abatement ab initio can have on collateral matters, including undermining issue preclusion”
• declining to interpret rule of civil procedure as allowing substitution in criminal appeals because \[g]iven the practical considerations involved . . . the Legislature would be the appropriate body to adopt that particular approach\
• “In Massachusetts, as elsewhere, a trial court judgment is final for purposes of res judicata or issue preclusion regardless of the fact that it is on appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).