Sullivan v. Com.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that this same deferential standard applies to the factfinder’s interpretation of video evidence
• noting that the same deference that applies to the findings of fact made by a jury also applies to findings made by a trial judge
• finding that this deferential appellate standard “applies not only to findings of fact, but also to any reasonable and justified inferences the fact-finder may have drawn from the facts proved”
• examining the sufficiency of the evidence under the statute’s predecessor, Code § 3.1-796.122
• emphasizing the mandatory - 10 - nature of the standard of review despite the possible “tug . . . to put aside the appropriate standard of review to impose a result closer to our own notions of correctness”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).