Joseph Moncrief v. Division of Child Support Enforcement, ex rel. Mary Ann Joyner

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “appellant’s failure to strictly adhere to the requirements of Rule 5A:20(c) were insignificant and were not so substantial as to preclude us from addressing the merits of the case”
• holding that an appellant did not waive issues by endorsing a final order “Seen and Objected to . . . for the reasons stated in oral argument” where the record reflected that he presented the trial court with the same arguments subsequently raised on appeal
• “We review de novo the trial court’s application of defined legal standards to the particular facts of a case.”
• appellant had preserved his argument for appeal by making the trial court aware of his position
• “In interpreting Rule 5A:18, the Supreme Court has . . . held that if a trial court is aware of a litigant’s legal position and the litigant did not expressly waive such arguments, the arguments remain preserved for appeal.’” (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 210, 217 (2010))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).