Hood v. Com.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that while the term “shall” in a statute is generally construed as directory rather than mandatory, the court may not construe it as such if the statute manifests a contrary intent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Rickman v. Commonwealth
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 2017-12-28· cited 54×
• Eastlack v. Com.
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 2011-06-09· cited 23×
• Jeffrey Minor v. Aramark/VCU and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America
  Court of Appeals of Virginia· 2012-02-21· cited 2×
• Weatherholt v. Commonwealth
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 2020-03-19
• Ferrara v. Commonwealth
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 2021-02-25
• Travis Alexander Bland Henderson, s/k/a Travis Alexander Bland-Henderson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
  Court of Appeals of Virginia· 2023-04-11

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Morrissey v. Brewer
  Supreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 10,835×
• Carey v. Piphus
  Supreme Court· 1978-03-21· cited 3,438×
• Goss v. Lopez
  Supreme Court· 1975-01-22· cited 3,014×
• Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy
  Supreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 2,289×
• Vitek v. Jones
  Supreme Court· 1980-03-25· cited 1,747×
• Grattan v. Com.
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 2009-11-05· cited 314×
• Jamborsky v. Baskins
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1994-04-15· cited 65×
• Evans v. Evans
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 2010-06-10· cited 49×
• Townes v. Com.
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 2005-03-03· cited 26×
• Waller v. Com.
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 2009-11-05· cited 14×
• Warrington v. Com.
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 2010-09-16· cited 11×