Rowe v. Com.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defense counsel’s agreement about a lesser-included offense at trial precluded his ability to argue that issue on appeal
• holding that the defendant waived his lesser-included offense challenge by inviting the alleged error
• holding that a litigant “may not approbate and reprobate by taking successive positions in the course of litigation that are either inconsistent with each other or mutually contradictory” (quoting Cangiano v. LSH Bldg. Co., 271 Va. 171, 181 (2006))
• recognizing that a defendant “may not approbate and reprobate by taking successive positions in the course of litigation that are either inconsistent with each other or mutually contradictory” (quoting Cangiano v. LSH Bldg. Co., 271 Va. 171, 181 (2006))
• noting that the Court of Appeals twice required appellant to file a new petition for appeal to conform to Rule 5A:20(c)
• noting that the Court of Appeals twice required appellant to file a new petition for appeal to bring it into conformity with the Rules

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).