Skip to main content

Rickman v. Commonwealth

Citations

  • 808 S.E.2d 395
  • 294 Va. 531

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that the “right-result-different-reason doctrine” is applicable in a case in which the appellate court “express[es] no view on the correctness of the lower court’s rationale”
  • finding that the term “shall” is usually discretionary rather than mandatory and thus no specific exclusive remedy applies unless the statute manifests a contrary intent
  • recognizing the “right-result-different-reason” doctrine as permitting an appellate court to affirm a lower court’s judgment without expressing a “view on the correctness of the lower court’s rationale”
  • stating that “[n]o litigant or court should willfully disregard” a “shall” command
  • explaining that both mandatory and directory statutes use the word “shall”
  • recognizing the appellate power to affirm on different legal grounds

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kelsey

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Rickman v. Commonwealth

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.