Scialdone 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 trial court was aware of defendants' arguments and ruled on them
• finding that there is \no basis for review or action by this Court on appeal\ for purposes of Rule 5:25 if \there is no ruling by the trial court on the issue\ (quoting Riverside Hosp., Inc. v. Johnson , 272 Va. 518 , 526, 636 S.E.2d 416 , 420 (2006) )
• explaining the difference between direct or summary contempt and indirect contempt
• granting the accused due process in an indirect contempt proceeding, including “‘the assistance of counsel . . . and the right to call witnesses’” (quoting Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 537 (1925))
• applying Rule 5:25, the Supreme Court of Virginia counterpart to Rule 5A:18
• applying Rule 5:25, the Supreme Court of Virginia counterpart to Rule 5A:18

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).